Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Early retirement selfish, unpatriotic (raise taxes to force you to pay taxes longer)
Baltimore Sun ^ | March 26, 2008 | Andrew L. Yarrow

Posted on 03/27/2008 10:54:24 AM PDT by sickoflibs

When I hear my fellow baby boomers gleefully talk about their elaborate plans to retire ASAP, head for the Tuscan hills, or otherwise continue their lifelong quest for "self-actualization," I have to bite my tongue.

It's not that I'm all work and no play. But there's just something - make that lots of things - wrong, in general, with retiring at 55, 62 or even 65. I would go so far as to call it profoundly selfish and unpatriotic.

However, if Americans retired later, either staying in their current jobs or taking up "encore careers" - what Marc Freedman of Civic Ventures calls do-good, later-life jobs - we could significantly slow the growth of our multitrillion-dollar national debt, which is largely driven by rising Medicare and Social Security costs (as yesterday's Social Security trustees' report makes abundantly clear). We also could keep more people in a labor force that would no longer be growing appreciably if not for immigrants. For individuals, working longer can mean more income and savings and something to bequeath to one's children. For the nation, if millions of us worked until 67 instead of 62, Americans' wealth and consumption would increase appreciably, fueling stronger economic growth. That added income would provide about $800 billion in additional tax revenues, and reduce government benefit costs by at least $100 billion in 2045, according to Urban Institute calculations. This alone would cut the projected deficit in 2045 by 159 percent.

To encourage such behavior, Social Security benefits taken before age 66 or 70 could be more highly taxed, and employee rates of Social Security taxation could be progressively reduced for each year worked after 66 or 70. Or the government could provide a similar sliding tax credit for Americans who continue working beyond age 70.

(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: medicare; retirement; seniors; socialsecurity; taxes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-92 next last
I guess more of your SS benefits would go to No Child Left Behind and Hillary/Obama fee Health Care (for illegals) unless you kept working and paying taxes on job salary for same purpose.

I hated it when Reagan and Clinton raised income taxes on social security benefits to pay for the general budget, It's no better than the phony I OWE YOUs they wrote themselves while spending the SS taxes. Notice they wont call for just cutting the benefits, that would show it's just a welfare ripoff scheme. By taxing SS benefits the people who paid no income taxes (but paid minimum SS taxes ) dont get a cut in SS benefits because they make under the income limit once gain.

1 posted on 03/27/2008 10:54:25 AM PDT by sickoflibs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Not surprised that it comes from that rag the Baltimore Sun, but here’s an idea...

SUCK A LEMON!


2 posted on 03/27/2008 10:56:40 AM PDT by fightinbluhen51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
But there's just something - make that lots of things - wrong, in general, with retiring at 55, 62 or even 65. I would go so far as to call it profoundly selfish and unpatriotic.

Take a flying leap off the nearest skyscraper, Yarrow. I'm retiring the day I turn 62, and I'd retire sooner if your beloved liberals weren't stealing so much of my income. You are not entitled to my labor, and I am not morally obligated to work to support your socialist nanny state.

3 posted on 03/27/2008 10:58:19 AM PDT by American Quilter (Vote Democrat--It's Easier Than Thinking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

I plan on working as long as someone will pay me.


4 posted on 03/27/2008 10:59:10 AM PDT by JmyBryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

I’ll tell you what, Andy, you work until you fall over dead from old age, while I retire and cruise around the country in my geezer RV.


5 posted on 03/27/2008 10:59:53 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner ("We must not forget that there is a war on and our troops are in the thick of it!"--Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
Andrew L. Yarrow

Seems to think the problem with government is not enough revenue.
WRONG!! It's too much spending. Bush and his liberal Republican cronies have been spending our, our childrens' money and their subsequent generations' money at a rate that would embarrass Bill Clinton.

6 posted on 03/27/2008 10:59:57 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American Quilter

“....You are not entitled to my labor, and I am not morally obligated to work to support your socialist nanny state....”

Double - Bingo


7 posted on 03/27/2008 11:00:18 AM PDT by Former MSM Viewer ("We will hunt the terrorists in every dark corner of the earth. We will be relentless." W 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
retiring at 55, 62 or even 65. I would go so far as to call it profoundly selfish and unpatriotic.

Thank goodness that doesn't include me, I retired at 54.

8 posted on 03/27/2008 11:01:23 AM PDT by Graybeard58 ( Remember and pray for SSgt. Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American Quilter
If I could have invested all the money taken from me for Social Security, I could retire right now (and I'm not 50 yet). I've worked quite enough for everyone else already!!!!
9 posted on 03/27/2008 11:01:23 AM PDT by susannah59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
yikes...get a load of the lefties associated with “Public Agenda “

http://www.publicagenda.org/aboutpa/aboutpa_whoswho.cfm

10 posted on 03/27/2008 11:01:40 AM PDT by stylin19a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner
Ironically the next topic in the thread is, GPO profits go to bonuses and trips. Yeah let's work longer to support our government. What is this? Feudalism?
11 posted on 03/27/2008 11:02:40 AM PDT by dblshot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
This government has taken thousands of dollars from my husband and myself by force of law. I plan to retire at 65 and get some of it back. I told this idiot columnist the same thing.

Carolyn

12 posted on 03/27/2008 11:03:03 AM PDT by CDHart ("It's too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the b@#$%^&s."--Claire Wolfe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

I will retire as soon as I can without counting on SS and play golf and with grandkids. Call me unpatriotic but the framers did not intend for me to pay for someone else’s retirement.


13 posted on 03/27/2008 11:03:28 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Yeah, people should work longer so they can pay more taxes to help fund other people. If someone decides they can retire at 30 and they don’t expect anybody else to support them, what business is it of mine?


14 posted on 03/27/2008 11:03:32 AM PDT by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American Quilter
I love your response. Did you go to their website and send it to the author? I did, but mine wasn't as good as yours.

Carolyn

15 posted on 03/27/2008 11:03:47 AM PDT by CDHart ("It's too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the b@#$%^&s."--Claire Wolfe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
This alone would cut the projected deficit in 2045 by 159 percent.

Another mathematical illiterate with a journalism degree.

16 posted on 03/27/2008 11:04:21 AM PDT by 17th Miss Regt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Apparently he doesn’t understand how many days a year we all work for the government. Its into May now isn’t it? I just retired in January at age 62 and I have one response for this idiot - BMA!!!


17 posted on 03/27/2008 11:06:48 AM PDT by Humvee (Beliefs are more powerful than facts - Paulus Atreides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

“To encourage such behavior, Social Security benefits taken before age 66 or 70 could be more highly taxed,”....

Kiss my rosy red ass!....Who were the village idiots who got us into this mess?....Maybe the politicians who got us here should all get 9 to 5 jobs til they turn 90!


18 posted on 03/27/2008 11:08:50 AM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

this guy is a socialist moron...just because I started saving for retirement when i was 21, and put together enough money to retire at 52, I am unpatriotic!!!!!!!! This guy can Bl@w me big time......


19 posted on 03/27/2008 11:09:11 AM PDT by joe fonebone (Screw McPain....J. Fred Muggs for POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
The next step is euthanasia of the elderly. “It is selfish and unpatriotic to consume government funds, when they could be going to children or health care or [fill in the blank]. You are no longer productive, and it's unpatriotic to consume more than you produce. (cough-unless you're one of a number of special minority groups, then it's expected you won't produce, as you're a victim-cough)”

One small step, folks...

20 posted on 03/27/2008 11:11:53 AM PDT by Hoffer Rand (Forget "Who is John Galt?" I want to know "Where is Galt's Gulch?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American Quilter

Take a flying leap off the nearest skyscraper, Yarrow. I’m retiring the day I turn 62, and I’d retire sooner if your beloved liberals weren’t stealing so much of my income. You are not entitled to my labor, and I am not morally obligated to work to support your socialist nanny state.

Bravo!!!! and ditto


21 posted on 03/27/2008 11:13:05 AM PDT by Bitsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: American Quilter
I'd retire sooner if your beloved liberals weren't stealing so much of my income.

The point is, that if you were able to keep what you have earned, you may, in fact not need social security to supplement your retirement. Thus, the whole purpose of the program is exposed as a fraud and scam to redistribute your income to those more deserving of your hard work.

I look at my AGI as reported by the SS Admin and compare what I have paid in taxes to FICA and what I would have (imputed value based on DJIA 1980 to present) as a nest-egg (about 2.2 million) now, were those funds not stolen from me. I could retire from my job, today at 45, and live very comfortably for the rest of my life.

22 posted on 03/27/2008 11:13:22 AM PDT by Ouderkirk (Hillary = Senator Incitatus, Clintigula's whore...er, horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

So we should more and longer to pay more taxes... yeah, that’s incentive. /s


23 posted on 03/27/2008 11:15:23 AM PDT by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

I retired 3 years ago next week and am only upset because I wanted to do so by the time I reached 50 and it took til I was 52.
Why work more if I don’t need the money?
I ride my Harley, Fly my plane, fish and play on my boat, and travel.
I don’t take anything from the govt even though they still take from me. and I don’t bother anyone.
I worked hard and am now just enjoying and doing anything I want.
Raise my taxes? Fine. Guess I’ll go scuba diving.
Life’s real nice.


24 posted on 03/27/2008 11:15:47 AM PDT by Joe Boucher (An enemy of Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American Quilter

Sounds like you would retire earlier than 62 if it were possible.


25 posted on 03/27/2008 11:17:23 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CDHart

Sounds like you would retire before 65 if you could.


26 posted on 03/27/2008 11:18:10 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
To encourage such behavior, Social Security benefits taken before age 66 or 70 could be more highly taxed, and employee rates of Social Security taxation could be progressively reduced for each year worked after 66 or 70. Or the government could provide a similar sliding tax credit for Americans who continue working beyond age 70.

Aw, shucks. Why can't the liberals be straight with us, skip the foreplay, and go straight to the full-blown command economy?

Oh wait, I forgot, people would actually throw them out if that happened.

27 posted on 03/27/2008 11:18:35 AM PDT by rabscuttle385 (I have great faith in the American people. I have no faith in the American government, however.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
When I hear my fellow baby boomers gleefully talk about their elaborate plans to retire ASAP,

I am not a baby boomer.

But there's just something - make that lots of things - wrong, in general, with retiring at 55, 62 or even 65. I would go so far as to call it profoundly selfish and unpatriotic.

This guy would hate my guts if he found out I retired when I was 46.

For individuals, working longer can mean more income and savings

Filthy lucre!

...if millions of us worked until 67 instead of 62 [...] That added income would provide about $800 billion in additional tax revenues,

I do not wish to contribute money to finance programs I find disgusting.

28 posted on 03/27/2008 11:19:36 AM PDT by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
For individuals, working longer can mean more income and savings and something to bequeath to one's children.

Any bets on whether the author supports high death taxes so most of that bequeathing is actually to the government?

29 posted on 03/27/2008 11:20:41 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Rattenschadenfreude: joy at a Democrat's pain, especially Hillary's pain caused by Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

When you are retired, everyday is Saturday. And you know its Sunday because the paper is thick.


30 posted on 03/27/2008 11:20:57 AM PDT by Phantom Lord (Fall on to your knees for the Phantom Lord)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Raising the Social Security eligibility age would have the effect of reducing our fiscal problems. At the time SS was instituted, the retirement age was around the age the average American expected to be dead and buried. If we raised the SS eligibility age to 72 to 77, I don’t think we would have a multi-trillion dollar problem on our hands any more. Seniors who did not save up on their own would work until they dropped (or when they became eligible for SS) - seniors who did would retire before they became eligible for SS, pretty much as it was when SS was first put into place.


31 posted on 03/27/2008 11:21:49 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
We also could keep more people in a labor force that would no longer be growing appreciably if not for immigrants.

That labor force might have grown if the liberals didn't abort millions of American babies.

32 posted on 03/27/2008 11:22:38 AM PDT by rabscuttle385 (I have great faith in the American people. I have no faith in the American government, however.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
If older people retire, that means these jobs (not through attrition) are open to younger people to take ! It is good, not bad.

About liberals, they are similar to the puritans. They want you to work and work very hard but not allow you to - gasp ! To enjoy the fruits of your labor. One manager I worked for who is a liberal didn't like it when you took vacation and he would put roadblocks in the way to make it difficult to take the time off. One thing was not granting approval for the time off until a few days before you leave - very high cost on plane fare.
33 posted on 03/27/2008 11:25:20 AM PDT by CORedneck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

At age 35 I am at the bottom of this ponzi scheme they call Social Security, and paying for benefits that I will likely never collect. Cry me a river if you have to work until 70.

There is always euthanasia.


34 posted on 03/27/2008 11:27:18 AM PDT by Smogger (It's the WOT Stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei
At the time SS was instituted, the retirement age was around the age the average American expected to be dead and buried.

Average life span is a bad number to use because it improperly counts the affect infant and childhood mortality have. A child dying has no affect on the financial status of retirement plans. It's sad for the parents, but since the kid never put anything into SS he doesn't affect the accounting.

A better number would be life expectancy of someone who has hit 18 and is entering the work force. I expect that number is significantly higher than the 63-65 ages we often see for life expectancy when SS was started.

35 posted on 03/27/2008 11:27:40 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Rattenschadenfreude: joy at a Democrat's pain, especially Hillary's pain caused by Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway
Maybe the politicians who got us here should all get 9 to 5 jobs til they turn 90!

Which brings us 'round again to my mantra...TERM LIMITS NOW!

36 posted on 03/27/2008 11:28:44 AM PDT by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?" TERM LIMITS, NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
What really makes them angry is the fact that there are so many people who saved money and can afford to retire at 62. They simply must find a way to separate people from the money they spent their whole lives saving up by enacting confiscatory taxes to take it all away.

These are the folks who must be resisted at every turn.

37 posted on 03/27/2008 11:29:51 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Don't trust anyone who can't take a joke. [Congressman BillyBob])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
Yes, I would. But I'm being treated for lung cancer and need my group health insurance until I'm covered by Medicare.

Carolyn

38 posted on 03/27/2008 11:29:51 AM PDT by CDHart ("It's too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the b@#$%^&s."--Claire Wolfe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei
If we raised the SS eligibility age to 72 to 77, I don’t think we would have a multi-trillion dollar problem on our hands any more.

Hey, I'm already ticked off that they promised me full benefits at 65 many years ago, but recently changed it to 66. Want a geezer revolution? That's one way to start one!

39 posted on 03/27/2008 11:34:58 AM PDT by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?" TERM LIMITS, NOW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CDHart

Where did you find his email address?


40 posted on 03/27/2008 11:38:42 AM PDT by ChocChipCookie (<----- Typical White Person)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bitsy

That’s the smart thing to do, IMO. For many of us baby boomers, the difference in benefits between retiring at 62 rather than 66 will not be equaled until 76 YO.

IOW, if you retire at 62, your benefits will be reduced by 25% to 30%. If you wait until 66 to 67 to start drawing SS, it will take you at least until you are 76 before you have received the same total amount of money that you will be retiring at 62. (For those born in 1960, the break-even is at almost 79 YO.)


41 posted on 03/27/2008 11:40:46 AM PDT by savedbygrace (SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
Average life span is a bad number to use because it improperly counts the affect infant and childhood mortality have. A child dying has no affect on the financial status of retirement plans. It's sad for the parents, but since the kid never put anything into SS he doesn't affect the accounting. A better number would be life expectancy of someone who has hit 18 and is entering the work force. I expect that number is significantly higher than the 63-65 ages we often see for life expectancy when SS was started.

Makes no difference which set of figures you use. Child mortality stopped being an issue stateside during the 20th century. Average life span went from the low 60's to the low 80's. That's 20 more years for SS to carry, which is a really heavy burden, considering the pay-as-you-go nature of the program.

Of course, if SS were structured so that people got what they put in, instead of getting more than they paid in, SS wouldn't have a solvency problem. At the same time, without the getting-something-for-nothing aspect of SS, it wouldn't be anywhere near as popular as it is today.

42 posted on 03/27/2008 11:41:12 AM PDT by Zhang Fei
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

“I’ll tell you what, Andy, you work until you fall over dead from old age, while I retire and cruise around the country in my geezer RV.”

I retired, started a second career and now plan on leaving the work force, primarily due to the confiscatory tax system that punishes tax payers for earning more income, just as is done in other socialist countries.

It’s time to sit back now and come out ahead tax wise without bothering to work in retirement.

More and more of the baby boom generation will be doing this soon.

So Hitlery and Obama tax the working men and women all that you want and watch the coming collapse.


43 posted on 03/27/2008 11:43:41 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

Most who are considering early retirement could have retired at 29 if they hadn’t been so foolish in their youth.


44 posted on 03/27/2008 11:43:43 AM PDT by RightWhale (Clam down! avoid ataque de nervosa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Liberals preaching patriotism is something akin to Eliot Spitzer preaching fidelity.


45 posted on 03/27/2008 11:45:08 AM PDT by JZelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChocChipCookie
I just clicked on the link at the bottom of the posted material and it took me to the newspaper's site. There's a "comment" section and you don't have to sign up for it.

Carolyn

46 posted on 03/27/2008 11:46:44 AM PDT by CDHart ("It's too late to work within the system and too early to shoot the b@#$%^&s."--Claire Wolfe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

“...given our nation’s crying need for teachers, social service workers and public servants, millions of “seasoned citizens” could serve our communities...”

What a maroon. I could easily retire now, but am working to do some fun stuff. However, were I to retire, I could teach at the university level (since I have a PhD), but could not teach at the high school level. And, I never would, because I would NEVER lower my IQ by taking any of the marshmallow courses offered to those pursuing a degree in “education”.


47 posted on 03/27/2008 11:46:55 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

Nothing will reduce the fiscal problems of a Ponzi scheme.

Ask a construction worker about retiring at 72 - physical demands of the job usually dictate an earlier retirement.

And an engineer whether his company will keep him employed at age 70 - most get laid off by age 45-50 now in favor of younger or foreign workers.

Etc.


48 posted on 03/27/2008 11:47:18 AM PDT by cinives (On some planets what I do is considered normal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

Socialists bring this on themselves and then wonder how it happened.


49 posted on 03/27/2008 11:47:51 AM PDT by Republic of Texas (Socialism Always Fails)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoffer Rand
"The next step is euthanasia of the elderly."
50 posted on 03/27/2008 11:50:42 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-92 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson