- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Rand Paul wants you to be 70 before you can draw Social Security
Posted on 11/5/25 at 6:47 am to Pelican fan99
Posted on 11/5/25 at 6:47 am to Pelican fan99
quote:
quote: So he wants Americans to enjoy only 8 years of peace (if you’re lucky) before you die. [\quote]
[quote]Also nobody is stopping you from saving for your own retirement bro This is what is wrong with America today you shouldn't be waiting for the government to fund your retirement for you
Social Securiy should either NOT be mandatory, or it should allow individuals to CHOOSE how said money is invested.
To whit: my retirement plan allows me to direct my $ into specific mutual funds instead of broad baskets or tiers of aggressiveness.
I’m up 5x what my plans best baskets rate of return has posted this year alone,
This post was edited on 11/5/25 at 6:51 am
0
Posted on 11/5/25 at 7:41 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
That is way more than what was ever intended.
I'm not sure about that. Yeah, the average life expectancy was lower, by a lot, but from what I read that was mainly due to poor rates of infant mortality bringing the average down.
It looks to me like plenty of people lived to be 75+ back then too.
Posted on 11/5/25 at 7:46 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
There are folks in this thread calling SS welfare. It isn't ... yet.
The Supreme Court said it was. Look up Flemming v Nestor.. It was very clear that SS is an entitlement.
quote:
But the moment we uncouple SS contributions from payout, is the moment the welfare Rubicon is crossed.
That's just a condition on the degree of entitlement someone qualifies for. Just like the number of dependents or the amount of money someone makes outside of welfare at a part time job (which is completely individual). It's just a means test.
That doesn't mean it's not an entitlement.
Posted on 11/5/25 at 8:17 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
I'm not sure about that. Yeah, the average life expectancy was lower, by a lot, but from what I read that was mainly due to poor rates of infant mortality bringing the average down.
It looks to me like plenty of people lived to be 75+ back then too.
About 40% of people born in 1900 survived to 65 or older.
About 82% of people born 1985 will survive to 66 or older.
It’s more than double
Posted on 11/5/25 at 6:33 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
About 40% of people born in 1900 survived to 65 or older.
About 82% of people born 1985 will survive to 66 or older.
It’s more than double
Read what I posted again.
If you don't see the problem with your stats in that context, read it until you do.
Posted on 11/5/25 at 9:10 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Read what I posted again.
If you don't see the problem with your stats in that context, read it until you do.
I read it.
You argued that life expectancy was not a good metric due to high infant mortality rates, fine.
So I offered the metric that shows that Americans who were approaching 40 at the time SS was introduced were more likely than not, not going to live to 65. This pales in comparison to the 80% of current Americans approaching 40 who are expected to live to 65.
It’s really not that complicated.
Posted on 11/7/25 at 8:19 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
It’s really not that complicated.
I guess it wouldn't be if you actually posted what you claimed to have posted.
quote:
So I offered the metric that shows that Americans who were approaching 40 at the time SS was introduced were more likely than not, not going to live to 65.
LOL. That is not at all what you posted. Look at it again.
That may be what you read, but that's not what you posted here.
Posted on 11/7/25 at 8:27 am to dcbl
quote:
100% correct
raising the age must happen for solvency
we are running a trillion dollar annual deficit.
Balance the budget everywhere else and I think you'd have a good argument for adjustments to Social Security.
Posted on 11/7/25 at 8:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Pennies on the dollar. Won't do shite
Show your math.
Posted on 11/7/25 at 8:40 am to stout
Eff the assholes that established this program and those along the way that have kept it in place.
This post was edited on 11/7/25 at 8:43 am
Posted on 11/7/25 at 9:12 am to stout
It's been said a few times, but this is a long thread and bears repeating.
This statistic is not the right one to apply:
That is LE at birth. Someone who hasn't paid a penny into SS, many of who will not only never reach retirement age, but never even reach working age.
The relevant statistic is for someone who has attained the age of 70, how long are they expected to live? That table says age 84 for males, 86 for females. So 14/16 years on average.
And it isn't a matter of 'luck,' roughly(*) half will exceed that age. And no doubt life-style comes into play, a 70 YO pack-a-day guy probably won't make it much longer.
(*): it's not a 'median' number, so the distribution is skewed, but probably close
This statistic is not the right one to apply:
quote:LINK
The life expectancy for an American today is 78.4 years. So he wants Americans to enjoy only 8 years of peace (if you’re lucky) before you die.
******BZZZZZZZTTTTTTT!!!!!! WRONG!!!!!!******
That is LE at birth. Someone who hasn't paid a penny into SS, many of who will not only never reach retirement age, but never even reach working age.
The relevant statistic is for someone who has attained the age of 70, how long are they expected to live? That table says age 84 for males, 86 for females. So 14/16 years on average.
And it isn't a matter of 'luck,' roughly(*) half will exceed that age. And no doubt life-style comes into play, a 70 YO pack-a-day guy probably won't make it much longer.
(*): it's not a 'median' number, so the distribution is skewed, but probably close
Posted on 11/7/25 at 12:50 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
So I offered the metric that shows that Americans who were approaching 40 at the time SS was introduced were more likely than not, not going to live to 65.
quote:
LOL. That is not at all what you posted. Look at it again.
quote:
About 40% of people born in 1900 survived to 65 or older.
The first social security payments were made in 1937. Americans born in 1900 would have been 37 years old at the time ("approaching 40"). Of that cohort of people, only around 40% would go on to make it 65 years old.
So they, more likely than not, were going to die before age 65.
Again, this isn't complicated
Posted on 11/7/25 at 12:52 pm to stout
quote:Nope. Nothing about what he said prevents you from earning your own retirement.
So he wants Americans to enjoy only 8 years of peace (if you’re lucky) before you die.
When did it become government's job to ensure your "peace before you die"? Never figured you for a socialist, stout?
Posted on 11/7/25 at 12:57 pm to moneyg
quote:You could cut discretionary spending to $0 and barely balance the budget.
we are running a trillion dollar annual deficit.
Balance the budget everywhere else
Posted on 11/7/25 at 1:50 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
The first social security payments were made in 1937. Americans born in 1900 would have been 37 years old at the time ("approaching 40"). Of that cohort of people, only around 40% would go on to make it 65 years old.
So they, more likely than not, were going to die before age 65.
Again, this isn't complicated
It's not complicated, but you're interpreting it incorrectly.
40% of people born in 1900 would be expected to live until 65. However, many of them would die in the years between 1900-1937. Of the people born in 1900 who were still alive in 1937, a much greater percentage would be expected to live to 65+. In fact, the life expectancy of a 65 year old male in 1940 was 77 LINK.
So it stands to reason that a large majority of people in the US who were born in 1900 and lived until 1937 would be expected to live to 65+. Certainly much more than 40%.
Posted on 11/7/25 at 2:12 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
You could cut discretionary spending to $0 and barely balance the budget.
Are you suggesting that Social Security be cut beyond its deficit in order to solve other things contributing to the deficit?
Posted on 11/7/25 at 2:23 pm to stout
Rand Paul is a fricking idiot.
Posted on 11/7/25 at 2:26 pm to stout
quote:
The life expectancy for an American today is 78.4 years. So he wants Americans to enjoy only 8 years of peace (if you’re lucky) before you die.
Life expectancy is actually 82 for men and 85 for women if they make it to 62; which means 20-23 years on average of people on the benefit in retirement age if you take at 62.
SS age has needed to be raised for a very long time even if people arent going to like it. It's part of what will help keep it afloat and not in the red ultimately. It was designed with much lower draw times when it was implemented a century ago nearly. The average life expectancy WAS 62 years old when it was implemented in comparison to 79 now.
This post was edited on 11/7/25 at 2:30 pm
Posted on 11/7/25 at 2:31 pm to stout
While we bail out Argentina, arm Ukraine and pay for the Jews. What a shameful government we’ve created
Posted on 11/7/25 at 2:33 pm to stout
It should've been raised years ago. The life expectancy when it was first initiated was 65 years old.
Page 14 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News