PDA

View Full Version : Retirement Age


Porpoise101
August 30th, 2017, 04:59 PM
In the US, it is important to consider raising the retirement age. Socially, it makes sense for a few reasons, one being that the capacity to be healthy and able for longer has increased. When Social Security came into being, the 65 year old was expected to live for about 13-15 years (https://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html). Now a 67 year old (the new retirement age we are phasing into) can expect to live to about 16-19 years more (https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html). This fact, that the elderly are more able to live should be reflected in policy. After all, the more, well, alive one is, then the more they would be able to handle themselves.

The principal reason for doing something like this is for our economy and the prosperity of our society as a whole. For example, the CBO looked at raising eligibility ages (https://www.cbo.gov/publication/42683?index=12531) for many programs, and found that raising the ages for Medicare and Social Security would save us about $300 billion when our deficit numbers in the range of $400-500 billion. This would solve the majority of of our budget problems in the US, as we would have a much smaller deficit (leading to lower debt growth at least). It would then be a matter of shaving $100 billion from some other areas (or raising that in taxes). The other fiscal benefit is that it would encourage the elderly to work more, which generates economic activity (especially because they tend to have skills). We would then be able to tax this activity directly or indirectly, which would reduce the deficit further (I don't know by how much though). While it may make us more unhappy for now, I think it will spare future generations the terrible pain of bankruptcy.

I say this all with a large caveat: mental health. Various forms of dementia threaten to be larger problems for the US as time goes on, so it makes sense to allow these folk to continue to collect benefits. At least it seems like the only decent and moral option to me. In the mean time, our government should probably fund research into dementia so we can at the very least manage it.

Dmaxd123
August 30th, 2017, 05:50 PM
i can't really decide if i'm for or against raising the "retirement" age

currently there are benefits to waiting a few extra years before you start collecting.

what I can decide upon is that the money that comes from a paycheck for SS or Medicare should go directly to those accounts and not be able to be used for anything more.

something like SS I feel as though the money should be broken down a bit more and the money from MY paycheck goes into MY govt ss account, the govt can use 1/2 or even 2/3 of the interest from my account to go into the general SS funds but at the rate things are going right now you and I will pay into a system that we won't get repaid from

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 30th, 2017, 10:35 PM
I'm all for raising the retirement age. As the OP stated, programs like social security and Medicare were established during a time in which life spans were nearly a decade lower on average. We also now have a much larger percentage of people on government retirement programs. Back in the 40's, when social security was first enacted, there were 40 working people for each 1 retiree. Nowadays, there are only 7. This has resulted in further and further strain upon the social security system, which if not soon acted upon will result in its complete collaspe. So yeah, raise the retirement age right now!

Dmaxd123, that is essentially how welfare systems like social security work. Some people put more in than they get out, while others get more out than they put in. I don't agree with mandating that practice among the populace, and it could be handled much better, but that is just the unfortunate reality of such systems.

Dalcourt
August 31st, 2017, 02:23 AM
I completely understand the retirement age having to be raised due to people getting older and this putting a strain on your welfare system. I did voluntary work at a retirement home during school vacation and learned a lot about financing these things from the manager there.

Still, I always wondered how this works in practice and have some questions.

Tthe person is required to work in his/ her job a couple of years longer...so couldn't this result in increasing unemployment in the younger generation? I mean you finish college ready to take up a job you would usually easily get since the person working it is about to retire,but then the job will be "blocked" let's say another three years and you won't find a decent one these said three years since it is the same all around? This could in the long run result into couples having less children since they don't want to start a family after college if the have they don't have the financial standing for it without a decent job.
So the workforce in future generations will be reduced further and they will be even less "active working people" per retiree. So don't we basically just create a vicious circle here?

And jobs you are forced to retire earlier anyway since it wouldn't be possible for physical or mental reasons to work them at an older age...how should the financial gap between the time you have to actually stop working and the age you can get the retirement benefits be filled there?

If we like it or not even if he raise the retirement age gradually more and more to let's 75 say the costs for our welfare system still are going to explode,and we will have to invest a great deal of the money we are paid for our work into welfare matters.

Snowfox
August 31st, 2017, 04:22 AM
OK everyone I want to point out Dalcourt having especially good point. If older hags hang on their jobs more it literally means that younger ones are jobless. This is truth in my country and much of western europe.
Also we have to think that older people who have marinated their ass in working life tend to get paid way more than younger one who just started. When we combine old age and skill levels of old ager in work to his/her salary we many times see that old hag is not worth that salary. I have personally seen this happening many many times.
Persons effectiveness in job is lower when just graduated it peaks somewhere late 40s and starts declining towards 60. Salary steadily climbs higer and at some point it becomes unbearable high.
This anyway doesnt necessarily is so in all jobs but in many jobs it is. Take example of construction jobs.

Solution should be that older people cut their hours and get part of pension. Like this
Person is 55 and cuts hours to 90%, Person is 60 cuts to 75% 63 50% 65 25% and so on.
Not every job is same. Take Firefighter and compare it to someone who marinades his/her ass in office mostly doing nothing productive. Or any public servant since we know that they rarely actually do anything. Or take Cop who sits in car eating donuts and who steps out only when it gets so bored that they start to shoot random people.
Then compare public servant, officerat, and cop to someone who actually does something like carpenter or nurse or factory worker or bus driver etc.

ShineintheDark
August 31st, 2017, 07:12 AM
OK everyone I want to point out Dalcourt having especially good point. If older hags hang on their jobs more it literally means that younger ones are jobless. This is truth in my country and much of western europe.
Also we have to think that older people who have marinated their ass in working life tend to get paid way more than younger one who just started. When we combine old age and skill levels of old ager in work to his/her salary we many times see that old hag is not worth that salary. I have personally seen this happening many many times.
Persons effectiveness in job is lower when just graduated it peaks somewhere late 40s and starts declining towards 60. Salary steadily climbs higer and at some point it becomes unbearable high.
This anyway doesnt necessarily is so in all jobs but in many jobs it is. Take example of construction jobs.

Solution should be that older people cut their hours and get part of pension. Like this
Person is 55 and cuts hours to 90%, Person is 60 cuts to 75% 63 50% 65 25% and so on.
Not every job is same. Take Firefighter and compare it to someone who marinades his/her ass in office mostly doing nothing productive. Or any public servant since we know that they rarely actually do anything. Or take Cop who sits in car eating donuts and who steps out only when it gets so bored that they start to shoot random people.
Then compare public servant, officerat, and cop to someone who actually does something like carpenter or nurse or factory worker or bus driver etc.

Sooo you're saying we should switch to a more socialistic model? To each according to their ability, to each according to their needs? Interesting...

lliam
August 31st, 2017, 08:55 AM
I think Snow loves such stereotypes or has many prejudices. But I suppose, in the approach his proposal isn't that bad.

So see it less socialistic, but rather as a flexible retirement on installments of older people aged 55 to 75, depending on individual abilities to do the job.

NewLeafsFan
August 31st, 2017, 12:11 PM
Let me start off by saying that I don't agree with retirement. Research has shown that people that retire younger don't live as long and are for more likely to acquire illnesses like Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia.

As far as raising the retirement age I strongly disagree. In most first world countries, the goals of politicians should be to make the lives of every generation better than the one before it. Just because people are living longer does not mean that they should have to work for longer. Living longer is an obvious improvement. There is no need to complicate it any more than that.

Snowfox
August 31st, 2017, 01:16 PM
I think Snow loves such stereotypes or has many prejudices. But I suppose, in the approach his proposal isn't that bad.

So see it less socialistic, but rather as a flexible retirement on installments of older people aged 55 to 75, depending on individual abilities to do the job.

Exactly I love stereotypes and I have tons of prejudices. But how did you figure that out???
Flexible retirement is what I was talking. It has to be depending persons ability to do that job and job itself. I dont think we want to see 65 years old firefighters. Some occupations are so wearing that its hypocritical to expect people to hang on on those jobs past 50 of age. On the other hand we have jobs that require more or less nothing physically. We also have jobs that while are possible for older person to do are challenging in a way that they are not so fast and productive than what they were 20 years ago. By this I mean that salary should be flexible to downwards as well in case there is person who cant make that much.
This means that I am against minimum wage.

Porpoise101
August 31st, 2017, 03:55 PM
Just because people are living longer does not mean that they should have to work for longer. Living longer is an obvious improvement. There is no need to complicate it any more than that.Yeah, but then we would have to cut something else. Or we would have to cut the amount of benefits paid out to retirees. I find these things both unpleasant because I view other programs to be more valuable in general and I think that if you retire you should not have to slowly become poorer and wither away savings, slightly subsidized by Social Security. Of these options, employment can be a good thing for people because it can supply at least an activity to do and at best have many psychological and financial benefits as others have mentioned.

If people are living longer and staying healthier for longer, then why should we think of them as particularly less able or more deserving of retirement? That is my question. To me, I think it is because we operate on a 19th century idea of "old" when we live in the 21st.

Dalcourt Well there are two things here. First, I think that the disabled and the seriously ill should be able to retire early. This would reduce some of the fiscal benefits, but since there are still benefits as a whole I think it would be good in the end. This way those who have no ability to work will have society's support. Second, if the retirement age was slowly raised then the labor market would be more able to handle the influx. I think you are also operating on the assumption that the amount of jobs in an economy is fixed; it isn't. Often an influx of workers in a healthy economy will lead to more employment (not a decrease in the unemployment rate, just more people employed as a whole). I don't know anything about younger generations being denied access by the older ones, but I think that there is a cultural shift that needs to happen there. Often these high-status, high-paying jobs cause a lot of stress and unhappiness. As people near retirement, they should be more willing to accept more low-key employment for their own sake (it could make them better off because they are less stressed, and stress leads to sickness). Retirement ages were increased already to 67, and I don't remember any massive influx of the elderly preventing the promotion of young people.

mattsmith48
August 31st, 2017, 04:35 PM
If you want to cut spending, cut on useless shit, not things people need. Life expediency is only increasing for rich people and some parts of the middle class. For lower income life expediency is actually decreasing and they are the ones who will need those benefits the most when they retire and by raising the retirement age you are penalizing and hurting those people. Someone mention that raising the retirement age would stop young people from getting jobs after graduating college, I don't think the problem is there but in lower income and minimum wage jobs students and teenagers do to pay for college or university.

So no to raising the retirement age, to pay for it, you can cut spending on useless shit and put that money on things like social security or you can raise taxes on the rich, or even better, do both.

lliam
August 31st, 2017, 04:56 PM
Let me start off by saying that I don't agree with retirement.

retiring "young" doesn't necessarily mean, having a short live. It all depends how active you'll be after you retire. Also how you socialize and interacting with others etc etc.

Dmaxd123
August 31st, 2017, 05:09 PM
So no to raising the retirement age, to pay for it, you can cut spending on useless shit and put that money on things like social security or you can raise taxes on the rich, or even better, do both.

i'm all for cutting spending on useless shit, but raising taxes isn't the answer to the second part of the equation.

i come from a middle class family, my basic needs are met anything extra that I want I work for and purchase so to punish those that work hard by taxing them more is a bit crazy in my opinion

as it is the more $$ you make the higher you are taxed, but also you end up putting more $$ back into the economy because your disposable income is greater so you buy more stuff which helps the economy and helps the local/state tax base with sales tax. I guess I would say do away with income tax and just do a sales tax, but that doesn't solve the SS question

so I guess i'm saying tax people less so they can keep the economy going instead of just keeping the government going

but then again I would like SS to be an option: If someone can show they are putting more $$ in their IRA or 401K then they don't need to put it in the governments control to squander away, if you aren't comfortable saving $$ on your own or don't understand IRA's 401K's then have your employer take the SS from your paycheck and keep on going

mattsmith48
August 31st, 2017, 06:46 PM
i'm all for cutting spending on useless shit, but raising taxes isn't the answer to the second part of the equation.

i come from a middle class family, my basic needs are met anything extra that I want I work for and purchase so to punish those that work hard by taxing them more is a bit crazy in my opinion

as it is the more $$ you make the higher you are taxed, but also you end up putting more $$ back into the economy because your disposable income is greater so you buy more stuff which helps the economy and helps the local/state tax base with sales tax. I guess I would say do away with income tax and just do a sales tax, but that doesn't solve the SS question

so I guess i'm saying tax people less so they can keep the economy going instead of just keeping the government going

but then again I would like SS to be an option: If someone can show they are putting more $$ in their IRA or 401K then they don't need to put it in the governments control to squander away, if you aren't comfortable saving $$ on your own or don't understand IRA's 401K's then have your employer take the SS from your paycheck and keep on going

The more money you make the less of a percentage of your income you will actually spend. The more money you make the more taxes you pay because you need that much money. If they were not losing that money in taxes it would just be sitting in their bank account not doing anything to help the economy. Better for that money to be sent to the government through taxes and giving to the poor because they will spend it all and help the economy.

NewLeafsFan
August 31st, 2017, 08:44 PM
I could easily name 10 places where the government over spends. This isn't a debate on government spending so I'm not going to get into that, its a debate on retirement funds. You have my opinion.

Yeah, but then we would have to cut something else. Or we would have to cut the amount of benefits paid out to retirees. I find these things both unpleasant because I view other programs to be more valuable in general and I think that if you retire you should not have to slowly become poorer and wither away savings, slightly subsidized by Social Security. Of these options, employment can be a good thing for people because it can supply at least an activity to do and at best have many psychological and financial benefits as others have mentioned.

If people are living longer and staying healthier for longer, then why should we think of them as particularly less able or more deserving of retirement? That is my question. To me, I think it is because we operate on a 19th century idea of "old" when we live in the 21st.

Dalcourt Well there are two things here. First, I think that the disabled and the seriously ill should be able to retire early. This would reduce some of the fiscal benefits, but since there are still benefits as a whole I think it would be good in the end. This way those who have no ability to work will have society's support. Second, if the retirement age was slowly raised then the labor market would be more able to handle the influx. I think you are also operating on the assumption that the amount of jobs in an economy is fixed; it isn't. Often an influx of workers in a healthy economy will lead to more employment (not a decrease in the unemployment rate, just more people employed as a whole). I don't know anything about younger generations being denied access by the older ones, but I think that there is a cultural shift that needs to happen there. Often these high-status, high-paying jobs cause a lot of stress and unhappiness. As people near retirement, they should be more willing to accept more low-key employment for their own sake (it could make them better off because they are less stressed, and stress leads to sickness). Retirement ages were increased already to 67, and I don't remember any massive influx of the elderly preventing the promotion of young people.

Dalcourt
August 31st, 2017, 09:51 PM
Porpoise101 yes of course disabled should be able to retire earlier but somehow this has to be financed, too, hasn't it?And the costs for such a person that has to be taken care of are immense.

Why are the costs for retirement are exploding? It is not just because people get older but but also people need increasingly more help and assistance when they are older.

This is a result of change demographics and family structures. People used to have more children's and far more women where homemakers and so there was always someone around looking after elderly family members. Now we mostly need people who are paid for these kinds of things since it is not possible otherwise. As most people would be neither willing nor able to stay at home looking after grandpa.

This surely this creates a lot of new jobs but among those jobs a lot of people would only be prepared to work them with a considerably higher salary than they get now. Results are costs are increasing further....in the long-run you would have to set a retirement age of 85...which wouldn't make any sense. We have to be realistic, no matter what we will just able to do certain work till a certain age and there are limits...

Allowing people to retire earlier with reduced benefits will lead to impoverishment of the elderly...so also not really a fair deal either.

Ensuring a life in dignity for senior citizens is a complicated take and can't solved by having them to work 3 years longer or anything.

The whole system has to be reformed and people have to be encouraged to save up way more in private for their retirement...maybe people would be more willing to pay off money for retirement benefits if they know it's for themselves not for others.
Of course this has to be done gradually.

Sure you have a point with labor markets adapting but do they adapt in the right direction and at the pace needed? Surely not, since if it did we wouldn't have a problem financing retirement with our current system and we wouldn't be talking about changing it.

Voice_Of_Unreason
August 31st, 2017, 10:11 PM
The more money you make the less of a percentage of your income you will actually spend. The more money you make the more taxes you pay because you need that much money
Yea, because people who don't live from paycheck to paycheck like to make the smart choice of saving money in case of future hardship. That is a good thing. You sound like you are advocating to make it harder for people to make that smart choice, because it isn't fair others can't. I don't see any good coming from this. .If they were not losing that money in taxes it would just be sitting in their bank account not doing anything to help the economy.
Actually, money in the bank does help the economy. It lowers interests rates and makes banks much more willing to give out loans. Which actually helps the poor since they are the most affected by loan refusals and high interest rates. Claiming that money in a bank just sits in a hidden vault and doesn't do anything to affect the economy is a fundamental misunderstanding of how banking works.

I'll love to "discuss" more economical issues, but that isn't the discussion here. Let's stay focused on how to deal with the retirement crisis that is quickly approaching, not having sissy fights over tax policy and class oppression.

Snowfox
September 1st, 2017, 01:48 AM
If you want to cut spending, cut on useless shit, not things people need. Life expediency is only increasing for rich people and some parts of the middle class. For lower income life expediency is actually decreasing and they are the ones who will need those benefits the most when they retire and by raising the retirement age you are penalizing and hurting those people. Someone mention that raising the retirement age would stop young people from getting jobs after graduating college, I don't think the problem is there but in lower income and minimum wage jobs students and teenagers do to pay for college or university.

So no to raising the retirement age, to pay for it, you can cut spending on useless shit and put that money on things like social security or you can raise taxes on the rich, or even better, do both.

Define useless shit. For example I fail to see how security of Nation (military+Police) is useless? Its fundamental core of State this Monopoly of Violence. Also rising allready skyhigh taxes is plainly stealing. Better would be lower taxes with larger taxbase this taxbase I mean that no deductions but lower taxes generally. Also lower taxes for low income people is proven to economically effective.
TWo stage income tax 5% for low income (20000 or less) and 20% for evevry penny you make after 20000 and flat rate 20% for capital gains and 10% VAT and 10% company tax.
I know you dont know concept of VAT but its like sales tax. We can also add some extra taxes to certain goods like cigarettes or alcohol or you name it.

Vlerchan
September 2nd, 2017, 02:01 PM
In economics, the lump of labour fallacy is the idea that there is a fixed amount of work—a lump of labour—to be done within an economy which can be distributed to create more or fewer jobs. It was considered a fallacy in 1891 by economist David Frederick Schloss, who held that the amount of work is not fixed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

But also [Most of the examine incentives to retire early - principal holds]:

Finally, our regression evidence has shown that—if anything—the employment of the young and prime aged tends to move in the same direction as the elderly.

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c8252.pdf

Our conclusion, therefore, is relatively weak. We find no consistent evidence of an impact of the employment of the elderly on the young or prime - aged in our sample.

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c8262.pdf

An increase in the old workers’ participation is indeed correlated with an increase in the employment rate of young workers and a decrease in their unemployment rate. Even when controlling for the economic cycle, this positive association remains— albeit less robustly.

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c8254.pdf

Examining linked microdata spanning a long time period, we find no observable relationship between trends in employment of the older and younger age groups. Similarly, the statistical evidence does not indicate that older workers and younger workers are substitutes. On the contrary, our regression results suggest that if anything, young workers are complements for the elderly in Denmark because youth employment tends to rise and fall together with elderly employment.

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c8253.pdf

Becuase young and old people don't compete with each other for the same jobs - Low skill older people are disproportionately likely to exit onto disability benefits or unemployment benefits whatever the case, so that argument gets compounded in real life.

Raise the retirement age to 75.

If they were not losing that money in taxes it would just be sitting in their bank account not doing anything to help the economy. Better for that money to be sent to the government through taxes and giving to the poor because they will spend it all and help the economy.
C'mon dude, every topic that comes up around economics, you make this claim, and I have repeated, on numerous occasions, that it's flat out false.

Economic growth is not affected by consumption in the long-run.

I repeat.

Economic growth is not affected by consumption in the long-run.

Because the size of the economy in the long-run is ultimately bounded by supply and no matter how much money you give poor people to spend, it's not going to affect that parameter. I'm happy for you to present a competing model, but even just thinking about how market equilibrium is set should make it obvious that your propogating a false worldview.

jamie_n5
September 3rd, 2017, 07:02 PM
When Social Security and Medicare were set up they were set up well and were set up to be self sufficient and were. These programs worked very well and did run self sufficient until the Federal Government stuck their fingers into the fund and started taking money from the fund and putting it into the general fund with the guise of paying it back. Well we know that never happened don't we. So things started going downhill in the 80's to present. So now our brilliant congress has come up with the idea of raising the retirement age. It isn't because they truly feel that people are living longer, which we do know is true, but it's so they can get people to work longer and pay in so that they can continue to rob the funds and not bleed us more in taxes and in their minds look good for not increasing taxes. So in reality there is no true reason for raising the retirement age. If congress would get off their dead asses and work together and get their jobs done and stop throwing money away on useless things and cut back what we pay out to help other countries and help our own country I am betting we could wipe out the national debt in 10 years. Why do you think Trump got into office? People are sick and tired of getting screwed in every way while congress does nothing but play dirty politics. They are sick of old stuffed shirt politicians and lifelong leaches in office. Our forefathers never intended people to serve lifetime careers in congress. It's just too bad that they didn't put the same term limits that can be served in congress as the presidency in the constitution. So my point again the retirement age doesn't need to be raised it's that congress needs to quit robbing funds from Social Security and Medicare. We also need a good healthcare plan.

mattsmith48
September 4th, 2017, 02:11 PM
Define useless shit. For example I fail to see how security of Nation (military+Police) is useless?

I'm not saying military is useless but most countries are over spending on military and what that money is used for is useless shit, like last year when we bought fighter jets we are never gonna use. That money could and should be used on people who could use that money.

Snowfox
September 5th, 2017, 12:48 PM
I'm not saying military is useless but most countries are over spending on military and what that money is used for is useless shit, like last year when we bought fighter jets we are never gonna use. That money could and should be used on people who could use that money.

So you also mean that fireinsurance is useless shit cause change that you are gonna need one is small.

More strength you have one military means that less likely you are going to need it. Take this one from someone who lives in Russian neighbour with universal military conscription. 4 years from now and I have to serve.
In street language if you look like tough guy you aint gonna get picked on.

Security is just not arms and police and military. It far more wider subjeckt

mattsmith48
September 5th, 2017, 01:14 PM
So you also mean that fireinsurance is useless shit cause change that you are gonna need one is small.

It's more likely I'm going to need fire insurance at some point in my life time than we are going to use those fighter jets in the same time period. There is also the difference that an individual buying fire insurance does not force the government to raise the retirement age because they can't pay benefits, useless military expenses does.

More strength you have one military means that less likely you are going to need it. Take this one from someone who lives in Russian neighbour with universal military conscription. 4 years from now and I have to serve.
In street language if you look like tough guy you aint gonna get picked on.

Security is just not arms and police and military. It far more wider subjeckt

If Russia really wants to invade you it's not military conscription that will stop them. Military size does not matter, the US spend more than anyone and they are constantly at war, meanwhile we are one of the country who spend the less on military and the last time we were invaded we were still a British colony.

Vlerchan
September 6th, 2017, 03:35 AM
The United States hasn't been invaded in 200 years.

Canada has been involved in multiple conflicts in the last decade.

It's military conscription that will help deter Russia: It makes any cost benefit analysis less favourable. Google "Finlandization" for a pointer on the history there, too.

And the US spends so much on defence so that it can credibly expect to be able to make project itself into three continents, on short notice, if the need arises. The capacity of localised conflicts to balloon into global conflicts on short notice makes this necessary. This, in and of itself, affects how potentially bellicose countries act (i.e. less aggressively). The US is, in other words, subsidising global stability for the rest of the world with its current military commitments.

Perhaps the US shouldn't have gone into Iraq or Afghanistan, or whatever, but the counter factual of a small United States security presence is not peace in the Middle East - it's more assertive regional powers and less stable regions.

The retirement age should be raised irrespective.

Snowfox
September 8th, 2017, 12:21 PM
It's more likely I'm going to need fire insurance at some point in my life time than we are going to use those fighter jets in the same time period. There is also the difference that an individual buying fire insurance does not force the government to raise the retirement age because they can't pay benefits, useless military expenses does.



If Russia really wants to invade you it's not military conscription that will stop them. Military size does not matter, the US spend more than anyone and they are constantly at war, meanwhile we are one of the country who spend the less on military and the last time we were invaded we were still a British colony.

Canada is invaded currently. By Communists and Islamists.

Falcons_11
September 9th, 2017, 12:19 AM
I'm so far away from retiring that the present retirement system here in the USA they have now in all probability won't even be in existence in 2070. No lawmaker now is worrying about the retirement fate of us who were born in the beginning of the 21st century. HECK! With what's going on the world today it's a good chance that none of us will even be around to retire.