Another reason to hate the French

Sounds awesome. I'm not ready to do that in just 2-3 more years, but depending on how you define "semi-retirement", I might do that as early as age 50, but more likely age 55. Full on retirement no later than 60 for me and as early as 55 (or who knows, even earlier if either the market explodes or my wife finds a job she loves). I think though, 55 will be the earliest I'd want to retire completely.

Mrs. M wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

This is why (in a free society) you get your finances in order and save enough money to retire when you want to, not when the government tells you you can. The US could raise the retirement age to 120 and it wouldn't affect me. I'm retiring when I feel like it, and that will be BEFORE the earliest "retirement age" for me of 62.

Ding, ding, we have a winner. I'm already planning a semi-retirement by 46 or 47.

Amazing how you take over another thread with you self absorbed bullshit.

Why don't you go for a run in traffic.

akdncv wrote:

Amazing how you take over another thread with you self absorbed bullshit...

This ^

Seems reasonable as people live longer, more productive lives that the retirement age would rise.

If they want to keep it at 60 they should promise to die sooner.

These young people are getting all worked up and going crazy for something that will affect them in 40 years?

Life must be way too easy if this is what gets them extremely upset.

"These young people are getting all worked up and going crazy for something that will affect them in 40 years?"

They are affected now as people working an extra 2 years will leave fewer jobs for them.

X-Runner wrote:

Seems reasonable as people live longer, more productive lives that the retirement age would rise.

If they want to keep it at 60 they should promise to die sooner.

These young people are getting all worked up and going crazy for something that will affect them in 40 years?

Life must be way too easy if this is what gets them extremely upset.

.

What a sucker. Increased life span should all be dedicated to working extra years for corporation? What happened to you people? Such doormats for the ruling class.

Increased life span should partially be dedicated to working extra years for yourself.

You spend your working years earning to cover the costs you spend over your entire adult life.

If you live more, you cost more and need to make more.

This is all on average and with a combined population.

So if the average person lives longer they have to work longer proportionately.

Maybe work one more year for every additional two years of life expectancy for example.

This is simple math.

The alternative is to live with less through out your life if you want to work less.

You get one cake. You cannot eat the cake and still have it.

Come on, who really needs to look for new reasons to hate the French? I mean, like there weren't enough reasons already.

Last I checked SS has been much funding the rest of the government for the past 20 years. Look at bushes "160 billion deficits" which turn out to be about 600 billion if your factor out SS.If SS had been invested properly (i.e. if you have a 30+ year investment time frame, would you stick all of your money in treasuries?) there would not be a shortfall (people will only get about 75% benefits for 15 years not the system going bankrupt). The US has been bankrupted by out of control military spending (why do we spend more than the rest of the world put together) which has distorted out economy and inhibited long term growth.

eojtlc wrote:

The problem with the french is the same as with us. Government programs are great, early retirement and health care and everything, but they are bankrupting both countries, and no one wants to pay for it.

.

It doesn't really matter whether the French protestors or the government is right or wrong. The numbers for the French retirement system either add up or they don't. If the numbers don't add up, then something must be done to ensure that they do -- or else inevitably people get screwed for real.

What do people make of the fact that the average lifespan has increased quite a bit since the retirement age of 60 was set. What is the appropriate formula for # of working years vs. # of retirement years?

There are a lot of ironies in this story. For one, the pressure to "fix" the retirement system is partly due to France joining (er, creating) the EU and its rules on goverment deficits -- this is a case of a people voting for something and then not liking the consequences of that vote. Also, many of the rioters are young people who haven't even worked that much and who will be expected to pay higher taxes over their working life to sustain an age 60 retirement age. Plus, the longer the strike goes on and more in negatively effects the French economy, the worse the debt crisis will get. In general, the debt and economic situation will deteriorate until the books are balanced.

The real UncleB wrote:

What a sucker. Increased life span should all be dedicated to working extra years for corporation?

What's wrong with working for a corporation?

i enjoy life wrote:

What's wrong with working for a corporation?

You think that way because you have been conditioned to think that way. The fact that you don't even know that you've been conditioned that way shows just how conditioned you are by the mainstream media and other tools of the nazi-zionist machine...

Hey, let go dat! Gimme that back....dfi98q4n!

It isn't time fo dat yet...gimme back dat fone.

Look brother run. Run before it's too late.

They'll come for you too. Run!

The alternative is to tax the uber rich like we used to.

Funny how we used to be able to afford things like free public education, libraries, Social Security, Medicare, Pension plans, post-retirement medical plans, free school sports, infrastructure, etc., etc.

Back when we taxed the highest earners at 90% and had a 48% tax on capital gains.

Now all we can afford is for the richest 1/10th of 1% to have more wealth than the bottom 50% and endless wars.

Weird Uncle wrote:

i enjoy life wrote:

What's wrong with working for a corporation?

You think that way because you have been conditioned to think that way. The fact that you don't even know that you've been conditioned that way shows just how conditioned you are by the mainstream media and other tools of the nazi-zionist machine...

Hey, let go dat! Gimme that back....dfi98q4n!

It isn't time fo dat yet...gimme back dat fone.

Look brother run. Run before it's too late.

They'll come for you too. Run!

Sarcasm is the lowest form of debate. It shows you cannot make any actual points

Actually we used to tax everyone. It wasn't until bush took over that half the population stopped paying income taxes. And most of the stuff on your list is local taxes (public education, libraries, school sports), private (pensions, post retirement medical plans), or currently funded (SS and medicare are good for another 10-20 years or so). None of that has anything to do with capital gains or income tax rates.

The real UncleB wrote:

The alternative is to tax the uber rich like we used to.

Funny how we used to be able to afford things like free public education, libraries, Social Security, Medicare, Pension plans, post-retirement medical plans, free school sports, infrastructure, etc., etc.

Back when we taxed the highest earners at 90% and had a 48% tax on capital gains.

Now all we can afford is for the richest 1/10th of 1% to have more wealth than the bottom 50% and endless wars.

W[quote]asdfasdfasdasdfasdfasdfa wrote:

And most of the stuff on your list is local taxes (public education, libraries, school sports), private (pensions, post retirement medical plans), or currently funded (SS and medicare are good for another 10-20 years or so). None of that has anything to do with capital gains or income tax rates.

What? Where do you think the states and towns get a lot of their funding from -- or at least they used to. The federal government. The massive reductions in corpoaret tax rates, high income tax rates, and capital gains taxes has screwed the middle class over big time. The local towns and states now rely on lotteries -- soaking the poor -- to amke up for some, but not all, of the monies they no longer get from the Feds.

When are you people going to wake up and realize the uber rich are dicking us over big time?

the uber rich are not doinking everyone - they are paying all the taxes. half of households pay zero federal income tax. who does that leave paying the tax? just us rich folks.

As for uncleb, if he thinks any western society can afford to have people retire at 60 and live off the state for 30+ years, he is just a fool, that's all. No need to debate him on anything and let him start blaming the jews for it.

Have you ever been to France? Doesn't sound like it. I have and frankly, I'm envious as hell about the way they, the Italians and the Spaniards live.

adelia wrote:

but half their income goes to taxes.

Have you ever seen a happy Frenchy? They're miserable rats. Smoke & drink there days away. Remember that thread on here a couple days ago about why Europeans smoke so much?

tyui wrote:

As for uncleb, if he thinks any western society can afford to have people retire at 60 and live off the state for 30+ years, he is just a fool, that's all. No need to debate him on anything and let him start blaming the jews for it.

Tyui, if UncleB is a fool how should we call you? You are as stupid as our french president who said today that half of high school guys are going to live over 100 years old :

Even if life expectancy improves a little bit (not sure by the way)we still will be far to "live off the state for 30+ years", especially in the US! Looking at the US place in this ranking, you should probably that something is going wrong in your country...