I believe a person should get their Social Security Check at 65 and maybe any pensions he may be due but the actual retirement age shouldn't be set.
I was due to retire at the end of 1999 and tried it for a few months -- went back to work. I'm triple dipping now, pension , social security and paycheck - but it's not for the money it's for the something-to-do and for the insurance coverage. With hospital costs today a person could easily be strapped with a $250,000 hospital bill and Medicare won't cover it all and the cost of private insurance over 65 is ridiculous.
2007-02-18 08:27:11
·
answer #1
·
answered by pilot 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
In order to be workable, the system must have benefits for both the employer and the employee. If you are talking about retirement benefits that an emploer pays into, it should probably be a minimum of 50 and should be based on a scale of years worked. This will encourage experienced & skilled workers to stay a while longer. However, people always have the option of retiring whenever they want. If they are under 50, they will simply have to defer whatever retirement benefits are due them until they reach that age. As individuals, people should be able to retire whenever they want to and can afford it, factoring in all variables.
2007-02-18 07:24:46
·
answer #2
·
answered by Ray 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Are you implying we should force someone to retire at a certain age? If I'm able and willing to work at 90 I want to have the freedom to do so. If I can afford to retire at 50 I want to do so. The only person that should set your retirement age is you.
2007-02-18 07:13:24
·
answer #3
·
answered by meathookcook 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
With the average life expectancy going up I would say 70 now. Many people work well into their 60's because they want too. We are losing a lot of intelligence by forcing people into retirement at an early age.
2007-02-18 07:13:11
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
50
2007-02-18 07:51:27
·
answer #5
·
answered by sally s 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
65
2007-02-18 07:19:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
None, because some places people work at offer deals. Maybe if someone retires at a certain time, they get a deal that is better than when they might leave 5 years later or so.
2007-02-18 07:13:05
·
answer #7
·
answered by I completely understand you 1
·
1⤊
0⤋
50 - 55 is realistic, so you can actually enjoy life after working hard for years.
Or as soon as you can afford it, the government then gives you a pension or 25% a month of what ever you have provided for yourself. The you save, the more proportionally (up to limit) they help you.
2007-02-18 07:12:08
·
answer #8
·
answered by dsclimb1 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
55
2007-02-18 07:11:46
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
67+ due to the fact people live longer these days, i think the government have the right idea in moving the age up from 65, as with new medicines we live longer, and stronger and are more capable of carrying out low key jobs.
2007-02-18 07:48:58
·
answer #10
·
answered by vince16262 1
·
0⤊
0⤋