Rich CEOs Call For Raising Retirement Age To 70, Medicare & Social Security...

[DalTheJigsaw123]

I knew this was coming, and I am not surprised. What is everyone's thoughts?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVwfnOpwBxw&

[Protector]

Can we change it to 20?

[ralis]

Neofeudalism as well as neoliberalism.

[safi]

Not surprising. It's not the fault of the rich CEOs though, but of the people in general. Work to live, not live to work, as most people do. Why let society dictate how much you should work?

Edited January 23, 2013 by safi

[thelerner]

Its ridiculous. I couldn't even find out what current health care rates would be for people 65 to 69, I assume it would be <9000(!$), matter of fact I assume it'd be closer $15,000 now and could only imagine what the current doubled medical inflation would bring. In 20 years would we need $60 to $80,000 to pay for our last 3 years of health insurance?

 

Seems like a bill that impoverish many. There is one good thing about it though. Once it went through and the ramifications were known the odds of getting single payer health care like the rest of first world nations would be in the bag. Ultimately that would help even the CEO bigwigs AND raise our national health outcomes above 16th in the world.

 

In some ways we have the best health care money can buy, but increasingly you'd better have a whole lotta money to get it. Thats why support Obama, his first choice was single payer, what we have now, I hope, is an intermediary step. We shall see.

 

and i imagine finding a job is harder for the 65 and older set.

Edited January 23, 2013 by thelerner

[skydog]

zazen

[Owledge]

If I'm not mistaken, they're in the process of raising it to 70 in Germany. (Correction: it's 67 now, raised from 65. They originally intended 70.)

I'm wondering how high they have to rise it before people realize the government is owning them and overthrow it.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Owledge

[Birch]

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/2012/tr2012.pdf

[deci belle]

My rich CEO client is 64 and has no intention of retiring (from guided high-altitude ascents and descents), any time soon~ what the heck…

[ragamor]

If I'm not mistaken, they're in the process of raising it to 70 in Germany.

I'm wondering how high they have to rise it before people realize the government is owning them and overthrow it.

 

Look at what happened to Egypt, people only managed to switch one goverment for another equal corrupt goverment.

The powers in be have this down to a nail, once a goverment falls the NWO just get some agents to create a "rebel" party with weapons and money support and people follows without question.

[JustARandomPanda]

Two things I'd like to note.

 

1. Not convinced single-payer healthcare is the answer. It might have been at one time but I'm convinced now it no longer is. Primarily because there's strong evidence that the health care industry works like a series of interlocking cartels. Which is why they can get away with jacking up prices to protect their income and wealth while an ever greater percentage of the population in the U.S. can't afford to see a physician even if they'd have to pay out of their own pocket.

 

Christopher Hedges - who is not known for being a Right-Wing Pundit - actually agreed with the house republicans in decrying the passage of "Obamacare" because he said the bill was full of perks and special treatment for the health care industry at the expense of the public.

 

2. The MSNBC op ed is missing a crucial point in mocking CEOs or anyone else who's income goes over the cut-off line for payroll taxes. This is due to not knowing their nation's own history when it comes to how and why SSI was set up the way it was.

 

When SSI was passed the reason there was a cut off was because anyone who contributes thereby gets money in return once they retire. And the percent returned is based on one's income. The reason it garners broad societal support is precisely because there is no means test. The end result the designers of SSI saw is that the real-world outcome would be a transfer of income from the poor and middle class to those whom are already well-off. And the more well-off you are the greater the windfall you'd receive from SSI after retiring. That would be true even today. So the designers put a limit so as to prevent the already wealthy from receiving that windfall. THAT'S the reason why the income cap for payroll taxes remains to this day.

 

SSI only passed because there was no means test. And implementing one today would be viciously fought as an anti-capitalist/pro-socialist welfare wealth transfer. All kinds of various groups would coalesce to defeat a means test. And odds are they'd win.

 

 

If you doubt what I'm saying about the SSI then check to see if your library has or can get via interlibrary loan the following book. Social Securty: A Documentary History

 

 

 

Social Security: A Documentary History details the development of U.S. Social Security from its antecedents and founding in 1935 to the controversies of the present day. Filled with primary source documents, this unique reference weaves together the colorful history of Social Security in an easy-to-follow chronological fashion that highlights the major moments and events in the program's development. Headnotes introduce and provide comments for the documents, which include congressional testimonies, government reports, presidential speeches, and rare archival evidence.

 

 

This documentary history offers the full text of selected primary source documents, including congressional testimony, committee reports, Supreme Court decisions, letters, pamphlets, legislation, and presidential messages to Congress. It is designed to serve as a “ready reference tool to the laws enacted by Congress and signed by the president and to provide background materials to enable readers to understand and appreciate Social Security’s legislative history.” Documents are grouped into both chronological and topical chapters, and all chapters begin with several pages of background and commentary.

 

Social Security’s 9 chapters cover the creation of social insurance programs in Europe in the late-nineteenth century, controversies over financing, political struggles, and the battle over privatization that continues into the present. The documents presented include President Roosevelt’s message to Congress in 1934 and President George W. Bush’s reform proposal of 2005. Also included are items such as “Security in Your Old Age,” the official government pamphlet that was issued in 1936 to explain the new Social Security program to workers (“There is now a law in this country which will give about 26 million working people something to live on when they are old and have stopped working”).

 

A table listing legislation containing provisions related to Social Security and another showing Social Security beneficiaries from 1937 to 2005 are among the appended items. The volume also has a glossary and a topically arranged, annotated bibliography. With so much documentary material readily obtainable from the Library of Congress American Memory project and similar Web sites, print-format documentary histories are no longer as critical to collections as they were before online availability. However, the careful arrangement and explanatory notes in Social Security: A Documentary History add value that should not be underestimated in purchase decisions. Recommended for college and large public libraries. --Art A. Lichtenstein

Edited January 23, 2013 by SereneBlue

[Owledge]

Look at what happened to Egypt, people only managed to switch one goverment for another equal corrupt goverment.

The powers in be have this down to a nail, once a goverment falls the NWO just get some agents to create a "rebel" party with weapons and money support and people follows without question.

Doesn't look like Libya and Egypt are the same case.

Also, Egypt aids Gaza now. That's nice.

How is the new Egypt government corrupt?

[ragamor]

I was mostly thinking about the whole arabian spring, but Libya makes more sense to my point than egypt, so thanks .

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/05/us-corruption-transparency-egypt-idUSBRE8B406Q20121205

Egypt is still in very bad shape, the whole aid Gaza stuff are most likely just be to calm down the people in Egypt.

 

Goverments are always a massive social pyramid scheme with a very few on top and countless enforcers.

If the goverment needs more money then the goverment will just take it, like forcing people to work much longer before they can retire.

[Owledge]

Goverments are always a massive social pyramid scheme with a very few on top and countless enforcers.

If the goverment needs more money then the goverment will just take it, like forcing people to work much longer before they can retire.

Not always.

 

I also don't trust TI's corruption index that much. It's practrically impossible to measure corruption in a non-biased way. The few examples mentioned in the article read like a Western interests sympathy ranking.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Owledge

[DalTheJigsaw123]

Can we change it to 20?

 

I'm with you!

[DalTheJigsaw123]

Not surprising. It's not the fault of the rich CEOs though, but of the people in general. Work to live, not live to work, as most people do. Why let society dictate how much you should work?

 

Well, they have us by the sack... On many levels. I am sure you are aware of those levels.

[DalTheJigsaw123]

zazen

 

Lol! Care to explain? These problems wont' go away simply by doing Zazen. What happens when you are zazining in the wild and they cut down the trees, hunt all the animals and start charging you for water?

[DalTheJigsaw123]

If I'm not mistaken, they're in the process of raising it to 70 in Germany.

I'm wondering how high they have to rise it before people realize the government is owning them and overthrow it.

 

Are you serious? Wow! Any links/information on this?

[DalTheJigsaw123]

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/2012/tr2012.pdf

 

Thank you!!

[DalTheJigsaw123]

Look at what happened to Egypt, people only managed to switch one goverment for another equal corrupt goverment.

The powers in be have this down to a nail, once a goverment falls the NWO just get some agents to create a "rebel" party with weapons and money support and people follows without question.

 

I like your point of view!

[DalTheJigsaw123]

Two things I'd like to note.

 

1. Not convinced single-payer healthcare is the answer. It might have been at one time but I'm convinced now it no longer is. Primarily because there's strong evidence that the health care industry works like a series of interlocking cartels. Which is why they can get away with jacking up prices to protect their income and wealth while an ever greater percentage of the population in the U.S. can't afford to see a physician even if they'd have to pay out of their own pocket.

 

Christopher Hedges - who is not known for being a Right-Wing Pundit - actually agreed with the house republicans in decrying the passage of "Obamacare" because he said the bill was full of perks and special treatment for the health care industry at the expense of the public.

 

2. The MSNBC op ed is missing a crucial point in mocking CEOs or anyone else who's income goes over the cut-off line for payroll taxes. This is due to not knowing their nation's own history when it comes to how and why SSI was set up the way it was.

 

When SSI was passed the reason there was a cut off was because anyone who contributes thereby gets money in return once they retire. And the percent returned is based on one's income. The reason it garners broad societal support is precisely because there is no means test. The end result the designers of SSI saw is that the real-world outcome would be a transfer of income from the poor and middle class to those whom are already well-off. And the more well-off you are the greater the windfall you'd receive from SSI after retiring. That would be true even today. So the designers put a limit so as to prevent the already wealthy from receiving that windfall. THAT'S the reason why the income cap for payroll taxes remains to this day.

 

SSI only passed because there was no means test. And implementing one today would be viciously fought as an anti-capitalist/pro-socialist welfare wealth transfer. All kinds of various groups would coalesce to defeat a means test. And odds are they'd win.

 

 

If you doubt what I'm saying about the SSI then check to see if your library has or can get via interlibrary loan the following book. Social Securty: A Documentary History

 

That was insightful! Thank you!

[Owledge]

Are you serious? Wow! Any links/information on this?

Sorry, gotta correct myself. It 67. It used to be 65, but was changed recently, with the exception of people born in a certain range. The government did intend to raise i to 70 though. Guess there was too much outrage.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regelaltersgrenze has a table about the exact ages.

I guess they expect people to have private insurance to be able to retire earlier. You know, the creeping privatization of everything. Some are supported by the government, although private.

The country is selling out. Nothing unusual. The railway system belonged to the people. Then the government sold it to the private sector. (You know, they promised they could run it more efficiently. Of course, because they don't give a shit about decent standards of any kind.) The people had no say in that. We get to vote in an undemocratic system, that's all.

[Protector]

Lol! Care to explain? These problems wont' go away simply by doing Zazen. What happens when you are zazining in the wild and they cut down the trees, hunt all the animals and start charging you for water?

 

That's where horse stance comes in

[Owledge]

That's where horse stance comes in

Whore's stance? Spread your legs?

 

Sorry, but the setup was too good not to make a pun.

[Protector]

Whore's stance? Spread your legs?

 

Sorry, but the setup was too good not to make a pun.

 

Actually you measure it with your feet but if you have good memory you can just spread your legs