The average life expectancy was only 61 years old back in 1935 and the retirement age was still 65. Most people that were not financially independent probably worked til they dropped.
HUGE SS increase
- Thread starter Don M.
- Start date
The average life expectancy was only 61 years old back in 1935 and the retirement age was still 65. Most people that were not financially independent probably worked til they dropped.
I'm not worried about SS going bankrupt either. When you have such a large number of the US population that are dependent on programs such as SS or welfare, it would be catastrophic to eliminate these programs and stop paying the people that rely on this money to live. Even if SS does go bankrupt, something else will be done to make sure the people eligible for it will receive it. Just imagine what would happen to the crime and death rates if SS payments or welfare payments were stopped completely or lowered to an amount that could not sustain a minimal quality of life. It's not going to happen.
Knight
Well-known Member
A great positive attitude but with more drawing and less paying combined with the total depletion of the bonds that are in place to carry payments the prediction or expectation of a decrease years from now makes sense doesn't it?
I do think your input about crime is right on. An impact like a few years back when gasoline was almost $5.00 a gallon theft was rampant with thieves punching holes in gas tanks to drain and get away fast.
Then there is the segment that will be tasked to support the higher ratio of those receiving. How long before they begin to resent the role they will play in supporting so many?
At times being a senior now looks pretty good compared to what is inevitable.
mathjak107
Well-known Member
- Location
- bayside ,queens , ny
average life expectancy means nothing when looking at things like social security .
life expectancy has many ways of measuring it depending what you want to illustrate .
life expectancy always has to be looked at as compared to a group and as the group gets older and older average life expectancy shifts . so as an example :
1-in-10 people born in 2014 is expected to die prior to age 60 (i.e., 90% are still alive), but beyond that point, the rate of death begins to increase substantially. However, over 60% of children born in 2014 are still expected to be alive when the cohort reaches their “life expectancy” (i.e., average age at death) of 79. The median (age 83) is equivalent to the 50th percentile, and the mode (89) is roughly around the 30th percentile. By age 100, only 2% of people born in 2014 are expected to still be alive.
so you can see as you get older and the sickly or those who have an early death in the cards are weeded out the odds of going on older increase . in this case life expectancy runs from 79- 89.
the old days had 65 as expectancy from birth but as an aging group is was much older back then .
Victor
Senior Member
- Location
- midwest USA
I got no increase this year. I wonder why.
mathjak107
Well-known Member
- Location
- bayside ,queens , ny
you were getting a discounted price the last 2 years on medicare since there were no colas . this year you were finally increased because we got a cola increase . you may actually still be paying a bit less than you should since they could not raise you more than the cola
OneEyedDiva
SF VIP
- Location
- New Jersey
LOL. I got a $24 "increase". My Medicare premium went up by $24 !
mathjak107
Well-known Member
- Location
- bayside ,queens , ny
it likely went up more , your were just capped at the cola amount under hold harmless. that happened to my wife ,she was supposed to go up more but couldn't since the increase could not be more than the cola
mathjak107
Well-known Member
- Location
- bayside ,queens , ny
same here . i retired 3 years ago , been spending down 6 figures plus while delaying ss . we are higher today by multiple 6 figures than the day i retired .
OneEyedDiva
SF VIP
- Location
- New Jersey
And that's a good thing Mathjak!
mathjak107
Well-known Member
- Location
- bayside ,queens , ny
yep , but it is a good thing for those collecting ss . it is a bad thing for those delaying taking ss since medicare is user funded pretty much , it means those people actually have to pay more than their share if they delay since they get the full increase .
CeeCee
Well-known Member
- Location
- Monterey Peninsula California
I just got my January widow's benefit and I got a $19 increase.
As mentioned previously, to take away a minimal standard of living from the millions of people that depend on payments from programs like social security & welfare to live would be catastrophic to the US economy. Crime rates would skyrocket, illness and death rates would skyrocket. Hospitals would be full beyond capacity, millions of people would be homeless and people would literally be dying in the streets. The negative consequences of eliminating these programs or reducing the payouts of these programs to the point where people would be so far below the poverty level that they couldn't maintain a basic lifestyle, (which is pretty much where social security is at right now), would exceed any benefits of reducing or eliminating these programs.
Social Security might have many changes in the future to help maximize benefits, or it may be replaced with a different program altogether, but retirement payouts for the elderly will never disappear or reduce to the point where elderly people could not live a minimal standard of life without resorting to crime for survival, becoming deathly ill or becoming homeless.
Average life expectancy is what the entire Social Security platform is based on, not sure how you can say it means nothing. Average life expectancy dictates the time when people can retire (recently raised from 65 to 66 and soon to be 67), and the amount they will collect while retired. As average life expectancy rises so does the retirement age and the amount of payouts.
mathjak107
Well-known Member
- Location
- bayside ,queens , ny
life expectancy from birth is meaningless when it comes to how long people will collect . it is only how many are left at ss age and how long that cohort will live.
average life expectancy from birth may be 79 but that is the 50% point .a man who makes it to 65 has a 62% chance of seeing 80 , a female a 72% chance , but a couple has an 89% chance of one of them seeing 80 since each can outlive the other . .
so in this case looking at things from birth are way off base . in fact the 50% point (average life expectancy ) from birth is 79 but a couple has a 47% chance of seeing 90 . while percentage wise 47- to 50% is not much difference the difference in years is amazing .
average life expectancy from birth may be 79 but that is the 50% point .a man who makes it to 65 has a 62% chance of seeing 80 , a female a 72% chance , but a couple has an 89% chance of one of them seeing 80 since each can outlive the other . .
so in this case looking at things from birth are way off base . in fact the 50% point (average life expectancy ) from birth is 79 but a couple has a 47% chance of seeing 90 . while percentage wise 47- to 50% is not much difference the difference in years is amazing .
mathjak107
Well-known Member
- Location
- bayside ,queens , ny
it says nothing about life expectancy from birth ! it has to do with those of RETIREMENT AGE living longer and as pointed out that is a lot longer than life expectancy at birth.
A COUPLE WHO MAKES IT TO 65 NOW HAS VERY DIFFERENT ODDS THAN FROM BIRTH . AT 65 ONE PERSON IN A COUPLE CAN NOW HAVE ODDS OF 47% OF SEEING 90 . from birth 79 is the 50% point . .
kitces said it best :
“life expectancy” can be a somewhat misleading term. Many people hear the term and think of it as a measure of how long they can “expect to live”. In reality, though, life expectancy is a measure of theaveragetime a person within some particular population is expected to live. While the average is meaningful in many respects, it may not always provide the best measure for setting expectations about the actual age someone is likely to reach. Because mortality rates aren’t constant across a lifespan and the distribution of ages at death are heavily skewed (i.e., more people die old than young), commonly cited life expectancy measures—particularly life expectancy at birth, which is most often cited in the media—may result in misleading expectations.
A COUPLE WHO MAKES IT TO 65 NOW HAS VERY DIFFERENT ODDS THAN FROM BIRTH . AT 65 ONE PERSON IN A COUPLE CAN NOW HAVE ODDS OF 47% OF SEEING 90 . from birth 79 is the 50% point . .
kitces said it best :
“life expectancy” can be a somewhat misleading term. Many people hear the term and think of it as a measure of how long they can “expect to live”. In reality, though, life expectancy is a measure of theaveragetime a person within some particular population is expected to live. While the average is meaningful in many respects, it may not always provide the best measure for setting expectations about the actual age someone is likely to reach. Because mortality rates aren’t constant across a lifespan and the distribution of ages at death are heavily skewed (i.e., more people die old than young), commonly cited life expectancy measures—particularly life expectancy at birth, which is most often cited in the media—may result in misleading expectations.
The definition of "life expectancy" is from birth unless otherwise qualified. I'm not sure why you insist on twisting yourself in knots attempting to make a point be something you want it to be when in fact it is very basic to understand. But please go ahead and get your last word in.
mathjak107
Well-known Member
- Location
- bayside ,queens , ny
if you read what i wrote life expectancy is measured different ways for different purposes . it is called a survival curve .
from birth life expectancy for a male is 79 . but life expectancy for a male once he gets to 65 is no longer 79, it is 83 .life expectancy is not some static number from birth . it changes along the curve as more and more of the sick ,the weak and the accident prone die and the pool becomes healthier people as well as those prone to living longer . now the sample pool is very different than when all the young are mixed in that die early when measured from birth . . .
because ss pertains to the older population how the curve is for people still alive changes drastically as they age . ss has to deal with not babies that die or the young which make things average out at 79 from birth , but they have to worry about the older groups . if they make it to 65 they have 50% chance of seeing 83 and if they make it to 83 they have 42% chance of making it to 85 . females are much higher , couples even higher . so age 79 from birth does not mean much when a couple who makes it to 65 has a 47% chance of one of them seeing 90 . that is a very far cry from an expectancy of 79 ...
so life expectancy must be looked at along the curve depending at what age you are interested in . ss is interested in the stats of the older population once those who are prone to dying early are out of the picture .
from birth life expectancy for a male is 79 . but life expectancy for a male once he gets to 65 is no longer 79, it is 83 .life expectancy is not some static number from birth . it changes along the curve as more and more of the sick ,the weak and the accident prone die and the pool becomes healthier people as well as those prone to living longer . now the sample pool is very different than when all the young are mixed in that die early when measured from birth . . .
because ss pertains to the older population how the curve is for people still alive changes drastically as they age . ss has to deal with not babies that die or the young which make things average out at 79 from birth , but they have to worry about the older groups . if they make it to 65 they have 50% chance of seeing 83 and if they make it to 83 they have 42% chance of making it to 85 . females are much higher , couples even higher . so age 79 from birth does not mean much when a couple who makes it to 65 has a 47% chance of one of them seeing 90 . that is a very far cry from an expectancy of 79 ...
so life expectancy must be looked at along the curve depending at what age you are interested in . ss is interested in the stats of the older population once those who are prone to dying early are out of the picture .
Knight
Well-known Member
The math, charts and information gathered from a variety of sources to give anyone a best guess as to how long they will live when & if they are ready to retire and draw their Soc. Sec. benefits is nice. On an individual basis for those able to set aside/invest/save money to be their retirment income. It's more like I hope like hell I get to enjoy a lot of years to spend what I set aside.
It seems there is a significant amount unable to set aside/invest/save money for their retirement. The reasons for that are something for another thread. I think what hurts the most is going from a reasonable standard of living during the years of employment to enduring the loss of that standard by depending on Soc. Sec. as sole income as the years in retirement pass.
It seems there is a significant amount unable to set aside/invest/save money for their retirement. The reasons for that are something for another thread. I think what hurts the most is going from a reasonable standard of living during the years of employment to enduring the loss of that standard by depending on Soc. Sec. as sole income as the years in retirement pass.
mathjak107
Well-known Member
- Location
- bayside ,queens , ny
yep , i agree . to us , we strived very hard to make sure retirement was not a step backward . we wanted to live even better in retirement than we did working and raising a family . so far we did that and these markets raining money for so long sure has helped us meet that goal .