Early retirement is an act of selfishness

Not to mention that too many people in the work force hold wages down.

Thank you for reminding me. A large part of the "immediate need" during the Depression was a desire to get the old out of the way so more of the few existing jobs could go to younger workers.

Now they want the best of both words? Keeping our money and keeping us in the workforce?

I can't recall a neocon agenda that wasn't predicated on these goals--even the wars...
 
I've done my part for making jobs available by 'shrugging' a month after I turned 55. I'm living on savings now, but ubetcha I'll be in line for the 'free money' as soon as I'm old enough. I paid those bastids in DC thousands of dollars a year for bupkis, and if they think they're gonna screw me out of the one benefit they owe me, they can get stuffed.

How many pissed-off old fogies with military training and nothin' to lose do you think will show up in DC if they stop the checks? They better start sellin' the National Parks, is the only advice I can give 'em. :D
 
I've done my part for making jobs available by 'shrugging' a month after I turned 55. I'm living on savings now, but ubetcha I'll be in line for the 'free money' as soon as I'm old enough. I paid those bastids in DC thousands of dollars a year for bupkis, and if they think they're gonna screw me out of the one benefit they owe me, they can get stuffed.

How many pissed-off old fogies with military training and nothin' to lose do you think will show up in DC if they stop the checks? They better start sellin' the National Parks, is the only advice I can give 'em. :D

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Our $100 Trillion National Debt[/FONT][/FONT]


How many National Parks are there? ;)

:D
 
Last edited:
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Our $100 Trillion National Debt[/FONT][/FONT]





How many National Parks are there? ;)

:D
A whole bunch of them. I've visited several in the past year, since I shrugged and moved into a fifth-wheel. :D

ETA: FedGov owns something like half of most the western states, and a huge hunk of the rest. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes any of it. The Sierra Club and NRA would both be interested in huge tracts, I'm sure.
 
A whole bunch of them. I've visited several in the past year, since I shrugged and moved into a fifth-wheel. :D

ETA: FedGov owns something like half of most the western states, and a huge hunk of the rest. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes any of it. The Sierra Club and NRA would both be interested in huge tracts, I'm sure.
$100 TRILLION worth? I think not. ;)

:D
 
$100 TRILLION worth? I think not. ;)

:D
That raises an interesting question. What's the current market value of FedGov's real estate holdings? They own most of DC, and buildings everywhere, in addition to parks and forests, etc... If we're gonna downsize FedGov considerably, that's an asset we can use for debt retirement. :)
 
That raises an interesting question. What's the current market value of FedGov's real estate holdings? They own most of DC, and buildings everywhere, in addition to parks and forests, etc... If we're gonna downsize FedGov considerably, that's an asset we can use for debt retirement. :)
Value in gold or FRNs? :D
 
That raises an interesting question. What's the current market value of FedGov's real estate holdings? They own most of DC, and buildings everywhere, in addition to parks and forests, etc... If we're gonna downsize FedGov considerably, that's an asset we can use for debt retirement. :)

I expect it would also be an interesting study to compare the land's worth to what the government charges corporate giants like Boise Cascade to harvest it. We might be able to base a Corporate Welfare Index on this...
 
I expect it would also be an interesting study to compare the land's worth to what the government charges corporate giants like Boise Cascade to harvest it. We might be able to base a Corporate Welfare Index on this...

Something like $.02 per acre. :p
 
I'm glad you are such an expert. Teach us oh great and wise ass of the aging!


Sadly, some are too dense to grasp even the simplest of subjects.

In this case, it is the definition of private. If a company decides for you, then the decision is not private. You can’t have a privatized retirement system where others decide how much to save, when to stop working, etc.
 
I thought those who retire early were making room for the younger people to take a job in that industry. I was always a little upset when I saw some guy who was nearly 75 still holding one of those jobs while some poor kid still had a job flipping burgers because there were no jobs paying anything more.
 
Sadly, some are too dense to grasp even the simplest of subjects.

In this case, it is the definition of private. If a company decides for you, then the decision is not private. You can’t have a privatized retirement system where others decide how much to save, when to stop working, etc.

Sounds like common sense... I don't know why I didn't think about that! Tell me more genius! Can you also explain how this applies to someone giving their opinion on people working longer? I might have missed it... I'm far too dense.
 
Sounds like common sense... I don't know why I didn't think about that! Tell me more genius! Can you also explain how this applies to someone giving their opinion on people working longer? I might have missed it... I'm far too dense.
We've noticed. :rolleyes:
 
SS is not really an entitlement, but rather a program that these people "paid" into... much like we pay into now...

It's more of an insurance plan that acts more like a pyramid scheme... raising the age of eligibility would drastically reduce the costs..

If it were privatized I imagine the first thing a company would do would be to raise the age of eligibility to 85.

In this respect, the author of the article seems to understand the way to end the pyramidal aspect of SS, without privatizing it... something I generally don't have a position on...

It would go into a account similar to 401(k). They would have no way to control the age, other than they do with current 401(k) plans by taxing at incredible high rates it if you withdraw it before 55. The one hard part of the plan would be determine one initial value and the funding of the initial value at conversion. Your comment is a perfect example of the financial illiteracy in this country, no wonder we are a bankrupt country.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top