How it will be?
Then they need not depend on their spouses or sons
2007-11-20 19:51:00 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Senior Citizens
It always amazes me when people say what folk should do is save for their retirement. That is all well and good but current economic studies have shown that it now takes hundreds of thousands if not over million [s] to ensure adequate care in our senior years; given the rise in costs of housing, food, insurances, medical care, prescriptions etc etc. Even when people dutifully save to the best of their abilities, once they actually reach retirement age, they find those funds are insufficient to sustain them. The costs of living do NOT decrease just because one is older...in the US there are NO reductions just because one has aged. Rents are sky high and to qualify for assistance you must be labeled poor. Let's not even talk about transportation costs; whether it be gasoline or public transportation.
IF one opts to start out life with a decision to bear and raise NO children and live super frugally during their youthful years, they MAY reach the goal of 100% solvency in their elder years, but let's face it this is not the answer either. In addition, folk earn at different rates; not all make mega salaries with great benefits and are able to save an appreciable amount that will make a difference later in life.
What I would support would be a government subsidized reduction in housing, food and transportation for all who having attained a certain age [or disability] - could qualify for such given their economic circumstances at the time. Just as I paid into social security I would have been willing to have paid into another fund during all those years to participate in a plan such as that.
The USA has all but priced senior citizens who are not wealthy right out of the market and created a new class of have nots.
2007-11-20 22:34:14 · answer #1 · answered by sage seeker 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
In welfare society they tried that, it works to an extent, you can be a ward of state after 62 in USA. The care is minimum from US standards. May be enough in some countries. But to live with respect people still have to provide for themselves. The cost for the government to growing and they may not be able to sustain it. With the medicine being so much improved people are living longer and it may not possible for states to maintain the programs.
It does not absolve the family. You can not escape your responsibility.
Why do you think others should care for you? What have you done for us? Think of what you can do for the country, not what the country can do for you.
Freeloaders have no place in any society.
2007-11-23 12:56:09 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We can leave that up to the Democrats. However, my personal opinion is that family should take care of family. Many people at 60 don't need the government to take care of them, as they made a determined effort to do that for themselves. Less failure to plan would allow more people to do the same.
2007-11-23 08:41:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are wrong! The government has no business in my business - I have worked all my life - raised 5 children and never asked for a thing. I have my SS and my pension and income from several annuities in which I invested. You sound to me like one of those lazy young things who does not want to help his parents! You are probably always looking for a handout too! Shame on you - get a job and a better attitude.
2007-11-21 17:34:46 · answer #4 · answered by CJ 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since when is 60 elderly? I'm 64 and still working and doing -- and plan to continue. I depend upon myself, not my spouse and not my kids.
2007-11-21 01:36:37 · answer #5 · answered by merrybodner 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
In the U.S. we can't retire from work until we're 67 now, so 60 is a little young to be considered elderly. People need to plan for their old age and set aside earnings throughout their lives and invest them wisely so that they will be able to care for themselves for the rest of their lives. No one should expect to be taken care of by their children.
2007-11-20 19:57:45 · answer #6 · answered by mollyflan 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If our government took care of anyone over 60, trust me, it would not be a good thing.I am sure you would be living below what you had been acustomed to. That is why everyone should plan for retirement. And, retirement at 60 won't be an option for me.
2007-11-21 01:25:38 · answer #7 · answered by Harley Lady 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First, people in their sixties are not elderly. Second, most people in their sixties are still working. Third, the taxes would eat up every one's pay check if the government took care of any more people. Finally, many of the baby boomers are contributing to their children's expenses instead of the children contributing to the parent's expenses.
2007-11-21 17:31:23 · answer #8 · answered by starflower 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Governments every where should take care of not elderly people but sick one too, it should be on a weekly basis or monthly, should pay their rents , electric, gas and water bills. If not weekly then monthly.
What i don't agree with you is they ( meaning elderly people ) should depend on their spouses too, but not their sons and daughters, they have been giving all their lives, so it is time to give them back.
PS: I am not bad, how are you?
2007-11-20 20:25:31 · answer #9 · answered by maram 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't know about other states but in Goa there is one schem for elder person who cross the age of 60. Goa government give them 1000 Rs. per month. Also there are many more schems for widows, local artists, blind people, mentally retard person etc.
2007-11-21 15:50:53 · answer #10 · answered by Akshada J 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋