this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
274 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19145 readers
2187 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A new budget by a large and influential group of House Republicans calls for raising the Social Security retirement age for future retirees and restructuring Medicare.

For Social Security, the budget endorses "modest adjustments to the retirement age for future retirees to account for increases in life expectancy." It calls for lowering benefits for the highest-earning beneficiaries. And it emphasizes that those ideas are not designed to take effect immediately: "The RSC Budget does not cut or delay retirement benefits for any senior in or near retirement."

Biden has blasted Republican proposals for the retirement programs, promising that he will not cut benefits and instead proposing in his recent White House budget to cover the future shortfall by raising taxes on upper earners.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That only seemed plausible back when we were starting to live longer and stay healthier.

That train left the US quite a while back.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The problem with this is that living longer isn't really the same as "has extra productive years of labor". Not dying of cancer at age 75 is living longer, but you're still old. Even desk jockeys are slowing down in their 60s, let alone people performing physical labor. They've given their best years to the economy and deserve to have a little time to enjoy their life before they're too infirm to do anything.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Hence the part where I also said and healthier. I've seen some 70 year olds with a lot of strength and energy left to burn. I've seen others that look like they might need a breather after walking 20 feet.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 8 months ago

There have always been a lucky few who seem vital late into life. It's irrelevant to when retirement age should be, because that limit is applying to people who haven't had that good fortune (and/or top notch preventative care throughout their lives). Even if your argument is that there are more of those lucky elderly, that's far from a universal gain.

We've had 40-some years of productivity growth disconnected from wage growth that all of them (and us) have fed into. The wealth exists, it's just been sucked away by their employers all these years. They deserve to benefit from it and have some time to spend with their grandchildren or finally take the vacation they never had the time for earlier. The economy doesn't need hale and hearty 75 year old workers waiting to get unsteady enough that their job finally kills them.