Hell no. I'm a black man. I will do good to make 50
2007-06-08 08:42:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
There is no choice in the matter. No matter what tricks you play with the economy, there is a limit to the percentage of the population that can be out of the workforce without inflicting poverty on some demographic group.
The government can't set retirement ages. People are free to retire at whatever age their personal wealth permits. But the government can change the age at which full Social Security benefits can be collected. The many people who have not planned and saved for retirement will have to work for much longer than has been customary for the last century.
2007-06-08 08:50:33
·
answer #2
·
answered by nightserf 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
In effect they have and will again. Our government does not control when someone can retire but they do control Social Security. It's a given that our life expectancy is increasing. Not long ago everyone could receive full benefits at age 65. Now it goes by your year of birth gradually increasing to age 68(?). I need to go to 66. Some will be 66yrs,2mos and so on. But in a free society people retire when they want to and when they are able regardless of social security.
2007-06-08 08:49:28
·
answer #3
·
answered by Dogbettor 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think that 65 is probably a reasonable retirement age for both sexes. What they should be doing, though, is taking more vigorous steps to keep people of over 50 in employment. It is incongruous to expect them to provide for their old age and then deny them the means to do so. It also seems unreasonable for the many foreigners flooding into Britain to be able to take jobs which older people would be delighted to do and are simply not considered for.
2007-06-08 09:09:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by Doethineb 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Now WHY would this be a good idea? NO, I don't think they should. It will make it more difficult for the younger generation to get jobs & it could put Seniors back in the shelters & on Welfare & that would also hurt the younger generation who have children on welfare that need it more than the retired folks who collect their Social Security Benefits. Did you think about this beforehand?
2007-06-08 08:47:58
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes. People are living far longer than they did when they first established the standard age for retirement. In fact, centurians are becoming common.
With that being--yes--they should raise the age of retirement.
2007-06-08 08:45:40
·
answer #6
·
answered by Talaupa 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
raise it to what? My age is already 67.
If you're asking because you want to save the SS system then find a way to keep citizens from leaving their states in search of better economic living. Take birth control off the market..then there'll be enough people working and putting into the system. Oh yeah, let more illegal immigrants in to work for minimum and below and put money into the system.
2007-06-08 08:45:40
·
answer #7
·
answered by Ferne 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
No it should not anyone who has been actively employed for forty years or more has earned their retirement what the government should do is stop taxing personal pension funds and allow people to provide for their retirement.
2007-06-08 08:58:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Why? People dont have to retire because they're 65 its not a law that you have to
2007-06-08 08:43:58
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It has already it use to be 65, but if you were born after Dec 1960 it is 67
2007-06-08 08:43:36
·
answer #10
·
answered by buckeye45694 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think not I retired at 60 before my job killed me
2007-06-08 08:52:25
·
answer #11
·
answered by Scouse 7
·
1⤊
0⤋