Interesting. “CQ” is also Ham Radio code for “I’m looking for someone to talk with” (seek-you). The Morse code for this, done repeatedly like a mantra, is surprisingly soothing :
I am not religious but I have woken up in the middle of the night having a thoughts that could be described as having a conversation in my head. And I have had imaginary conversations mid day. If someone who does that personifies that process as having a conversation with God then that is just fine. Whether or not I agree with their ideas is a separate issue. Dismissing someone who frames his thoughy processes that way as crazy is condescending and is not going to help to get anyone to agree with your point of view.
And I agree with you. 61 is not senior citizen age. I voted for 75. Which is the inverse of my own age. And yes, I know I am approaching (or already there is some cases) senior status.
Wow, those racist and anti-Semitic comments from CWB readers. I guess not surprising from what I know about CWB, but man, some people just sit with some serious hate and rage in their heads.
Also, as for mocking someone's religion. I disagree (and know I will catch heat for this), I think religious belief is just as a legitimate belief to mock as any other. I mock those that believe in horoscopes, psychics, reiki, or any other number of beliefs that have a complete lack of evidence (and in many of those cases are legitimately been shown by science to be complete bullshit, like reiki).
We mock those that believe in pizzagate or whatever that new one is now about the defense department and Taylor Swift rigging the Super Bowl, and we do so because is completely lacks evidence or sense of reason. But somehow it's not OK to mock someone who believes a guy a long time ago turned water into wine, walked on water, then died and came back to life three days later? Or another guy parted the waters of a whole sea with magical powers?
Besides, Mike Johnson is not different than others who spew the nonsense he claims to believe. He doesn't really believe his own bullshit, he's a charlatan just like Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, Joel Olsteen and the rest of the conmen like them.
Even though I share your sentiment I think they (the religious) would take it as an attack, not on themselves but an attack on everyone they love. The core of religious beliefs is once you pass on from this life you will be rewarded with an afterlife and if they follow their "rules" they will one day pass into the afterlife and be reunited with loved ones. Grandparents, parents, children, friends, even their pets will be their waiting for them. To say that it is false is to say that their loves ones are just gone forever. That their lives will just be gone too. Some people cannot fathom that concept.
I try not to mock individual religious beliefs, that just seems cruel.
But mocking their beliefs is not as cruel as the actions some 'Christians' make in the name of their religion. The Anti-abortion beliefs that they turn into legislation against girls and women. Anti-LGBTQ+ beliefs that they turn into cruelty for those who are not purely heterosexual. The list of these cruelties is long.
Denying their belief in an afterlife is not cruel.. I think it is a waste of time so I don't bother.
True but I don't think some of those actions people take on an individual basis. I'll do my best to articulate.
If someone asks me about religion I will tell them the truth, that a god may exist (I don't know) but certainly not the god of the bible. Why? I'll reply, "have you ever read the bible?" To believe that the bible is the literal word of God is to deny the inaccuracies the contradictions and plain mistakes that to make sense one has to twist logic and reason on its head and just declare "one of God's mysteries". But I never argue to anyone when they are talking about their dead loved ones "being in a better place". That is cruel.
Similarly, I think most people don't take the issues to the individual level. As in "abortion is murder" mentality but if someone they know, and love gets raped or has a tubal pregnancy. they are not thinking their loved one is about to commit murder. On the contrary, most (I say most because I am sure they're exceptions) will have compassion and empathy towards their loved one. The same can be said about someone being gay. Most (again, not all) will change their feelings when a family member comes out as gay. They may still have reservations on a global scale but individually they still love their family member and sometimes will start to change their views.
I guess what it boils down to is most people are not cruel on towards individuals but it is easier to be cruel towards groups. I am sure there is a physiological explanation for that type of thinking.
The idea, as far as I'm concerned, is that you're free to believe what you want, no matter how implausible it may seem to others. But when you make claims based on that belief ,you should expect to have those claims tested, criticized and perhaps even mocked. To give a farily neutral example, you might believe that Fridays that fall on the 13th of the month are unlucky days. That's fine. Stay home wrapped in blankets on those days. But if you claim that they are unlucky days, don't be hurt if someone asks for statistical evidence and then chides you when you come only with anecdotes.
There is a difference between mocking and disagreeing. Yes, I know realistically it happens. Many do it. That doesn't make it right. How do people negotiate or compromise when they are busy mocking each other? Would you want to negotiate with someone who was busy mocking everything in which you believe? Isn't that kind of the basis of all the issues in the Middle East, that Muslims can't accept anyone not believing in Allah?
I guess my original point got lost in the discussion. Most people central theme to their personal religion is there is someplace better waiting for them, and the people they love, when the time comes to die. When you point out their thinking is flawed, for whatever reason, they see it not as an analysis of their beliefs but as a direct attack on themselves and all the people they love. You are, effectively, telling them there is no meaning to life.
When powerful folks say that their god told them, personally, to be or do something that helps them singularly have greater authority over other people, mocking is the least we should do. Don’t confuse Johnson’s divine “conversations” with the average person’s desire to find meaning in their own mortality.
I beg to strongly disagree. Why mock? You can disagree with others without mocking. Many of the worst wars in the history of mankind were caused by this type of thinking. You are basically saying that mocking is okay because everyone does it. Look at the things you claim you mock. Is everything you believe in that worthy of respect? Why don't we simply have everyone mock each other on every area of belief in which they disagree? Oh, wait- it's already being done by the current Republicans. Attractive, isn't it?
The worst wars in history (probably all wars) were caused by religion, not by someone's perceived mockery. As far as the false equivalency of Republicans mocking people. They mock things like the disabled (remember Cheeto Hitler imitating the reporter?), LGTBQ+ people, women, and the idea of scientific evidence, not those with fantastical and indefensible beliefs. They punch down. Mocking or challenging religion is not picking on the less fortunate or denying facts.
And I'm not saying mocking is OK because everyone does it, I'm saying that it is OK to mock someone who believes he was chosen by some deity to be in a position of power, and that that deity spoke directly to him. Because ultimately a person with that kind of delusion is incredibly dangerous.
I'm not claiming it accomplishes anything. I'm saying there shouldn't be a taboo over mocking someone's religious beliefs any more than doing it for other things people believe without any evidence.
I guess we'll just need to disagree. I see no need and no value in mocking someone else's religious views. To each his own. You're not required to agree. You're not required to believe the same things. But think about this. Mocking someone else projects an air of superiority. Are you that convinced your beliefs and qualities make you that superior to anyone else?
You are misunderstanding completely. I'm saying that putting religion up there as a belief not to be mocked over other things that people have no problem if you mock it - like believing the Democrats run a secret satanic cult where they traffic children or that Bill Gates is implanting chips in us with the vaccines. Religion has the same level of evidence as things people have no problem mocking.
It is the religious who are convinced of their beliefs and feel superior, not me.
1) The Bible says that Christians should try to settle disputes internally. The same thing should have been done here.
2) People who do Civil Disobedience should be prepared to be punished. MLK was willing to go to jail. We have politicians who wear their past as a badge of honor.
You may be able to start collecting Social Security at age 62, but if you haven't reached "full retiement age'" those benefits will be reduced. If you were born after 1955 that age has increased to 66+ and will continue to increase monthly each year following, up to age 67 by the birth year 1960.
And the reduction could well be in the thousands of dollars. I didn't even think about retiring until I hit full retirement age, which for me, was 66 and four months (I'm 67 now). Even then I first went down to part-time and fully retired Dec. 1. When to start taking benefits is an incredibly consequential decision.
You are absolutely correct Beth. Your SS benefits accrue an additional 8% from age 65 to 70 for every year you did not take them. I was able to hold off until hitting age 70 and my benefits now are 40% greater than if I had claimed them at age 65.
I know a few people who have been able to do that, David. (And that's a crazy amount of a return!) We probably could have/should have waited a little longer for me, but ... we didn't and it's not a decision we can undo. I was probably four-five months past full retirement age.
Of course, no one knows how long they will live. If you wait until age 70 to start taking Social Security benefits, you lose out on eight years of monthly benefits you would have received (and which you could have invested when you received them) if you had started taking benefits at age 62. Depending on when you die, you may have been better off if you had started taking benefits at age 62 and invested the benefits as you receive them.
That is true. One has to consider the risk on the other side. If a person is heavily dependent on social security in order to meet basic needs, then the other end of that risk is being in your mid 80's and and not having enough to live on. I have been told that the benefit discounts for early retirement are based on actuarial life tables from the 40s when people did not live nearly as long as they do today.
Yes - the actuarial payout is the same regardless of when you start taking benefits, but the personal payout depends entirely on how long you live. And there are clear demographic differences between men and women, whites blacks, Asians and Hispanics, etc. This is one reason why I’m opposed to social security a mandatory program. It penalizes whole populations as well as the medically unlucky. It is grievously unfair.
Variation in residual life expectancy is no where near the biggest source of inequity with social security. The tax burden has varied over time based on the pay as you go nature of funding. And of you throw in Medicare then there are even greater dofferences in expected medical costs between classes of people.
But we have what we have due to historical decisions which seemed reasonable at the time. The question is what to do now. I am confident that the SSA will not be able to keep benefit levels where they are.
i won't argue the fairness of the SS program - tho i do favor a different program of individualized benefit accts.
but SS was designed to be an 'insurance' program - and insurance means risk pooling. in risk pooling there are winners and losers - if you call those who collect on car accident and death claims 'winners'.
again, not saying the impact on identity grps shd not be considered. SS needs an overhaul anyway, as - accd'g to actuarial analyses of SS trust fund going back several yrs - the 'trust fund' will be depleted by the mid-2030s.
you are correct, in that collecting benefits at the age you can begin taking them is a known, and age of death is an unknown. but all investing [as opposed to saving] contains an element of speculation, and risk of loss. as David L stated, 8% risk-free [given the US Treasuries are considered risk-free] for every yr beyond Full Retirement Age up to age 70.
I chose the same route as David did, and made the extra 40% on my monthly benefit. i'm not recommending it for anyone else - just making a bet. accd'g to a google search [grain of salt], i have to live to age 79/80 to break even. for several reasons i like my chances - if i can stay away from errant cars, trains and lightning.
Actually, it depends on at what age you reach full retirement under the Social Security law which, in turn, depends on what year you were born. I reached full retirement at age 66, so if I had waited until age 70 to collect social security, my benefits would have been 132% of my full retirement benefits, not 140%. For people born in 1960 and later, their full retirement age is 67. I believe that if they wait until age 70, they will receive 124% of the full monthly retirement benefit, rather than 140%.
correct, except it doesn't take into acct the annl CPI increase in benefits, which is what i expect David [and i] was [were] acctg for when we compared the benefit we wd have gotten at age 66 to the benefit we began receiving at age 70.
and i understand tht this annl CPI incr would have been received on the age 66 [FRA] benefit had he begun taking the benefit at age 66.
Given my history, you'll see why I consider it a crap shoot. My father died at 63, never collecting a penny of his SS earnings. My mother died at 95, collecting 30 years of SS.
Ridiculous. Take the money soon as possible and invest it sensibly and then look at the pile of money you’ll already have accumulated before the people who wait till 70 see their first nickel.
I agree that taking the money sooner is better if you either expect not to live to the actuarial number, or if you have a track record of sound saving and investing. For me, another factor is income tax. As long as my wife works, my SS will be taxed at 20-something percent instead of 12%. So I’m waiting for her to retire.
It is definitely not ridiculous. There is plenty of analysis done on how long you have to live to break even with taking retirement early. Most people will be better off not taking it early. The investment returns will not make up for extra payments. Also if you stop working at age 62, and need the money then you can't get any investment return on the SS benefits. If you continue to work, or draw income from your investments, then there could be tax implications of taking SS early which further diminish the benefit.
The (future) payments get larger, but the accumulated value takes a long time to catch up if you wait 8 years to start collecting. If you start collecting at age 70, you'll be in your 80s before the overall amount collected catches up, assuming Social Security as we know it is still around and that you live that long. I agree that it doesn't make much sense to take SS if you're still working, but I retired at 65 (and began collecting SS immediately) and have been very happy with the outcome. May you live 120 years and collect a lot of social security.
My line of work is with those aged 60 and older. The trend is now referring to them as "older adults", but "seniors" is just as fine and not offensive. The only generic term that ruffles their feathers is "elderly". That portrays a picture of grandma in a shawl with a walker. Put that term out to pasture.
My grandson's only 2 but I hope when he's old enough to try to figure out what the hell to get a woman who's 62 years old than him what to get for Christmas, he yells, "Gramma! Go wash your ass!" as he hands me a new bidet for for my birthday. (Which isn't on Christmas but I just had a senior-ish moment.)
“Comically earnest” to think racism could be a provocation…because the state’s attorney’s office is led by a Black woman? Love ya, Eric, but that is absurd.
I love the SunTimes since it hooked up with WBEZ, but some of the article sources have me puzzled. What does "editorially independent section supported by Republic Bank" mean exactly? And on the next page is a big old ad for Republic Bank called a "paid advertorial."
All the visual tweets are superb! Hard to choose just one.
But as for an age cut-off for any leader: Impossible to institute a one-size-fits-all age when there is no direct relationship between physical and mental-acuity ages. Confusing the two is a thought-trap. Nor does white hair signify that mental incompetence has set in.
Who is that genius of astrophysics confined to a wheelchair who needs a device to communicate? A bright mind in a useless body. Are we to disregard his pronouncements at a certain arbitrary age cut-off? Some "lose it" early, others late. Why deny society the thoughts of anyone smart, just because they have reached an arbitrary age? Moreover, we don't all age equally. Give me cogent oldsters who have proven they are worth listening to, rather than younger alleged experts with faulty reasoning, or a prejudicial outlook.
While folks are discussing whether Donald Trump or Joe Biden are mentally competent or not. Should we turn the mirror on their supporters and question their mental competency?
Old age can reduce a person’s ability to reason, but there are other factors as well, like ignorance, hate, anger or mental illness.
I share the concern that folks here have raised, but the problem is not necessarily solved by a younger candidate. Robert Kennedy Jr. is a wacko, not an old wacko but a wacko none the less.
I am a grumpy old man and I remember the original Kennedy ad (JFK), then this very similar Kennedy ad comes on during the Super Bowl…am I having a senior moment? No, it’s the Robert Kennedy Jr wacko train. Yo Caroline! Slap that boy!
At least hew to the correct premise when issuing opinions on age vs. competence, which observes no direct relationship. The bewilderment that can get a person institutionalized knows no age barrier or boundary. It's a trick Fate can play on us. A lucid oldster may lack facility with the latest technological advancement, but once familiar with it he/she is up to speed with younger thinkers. Meanwhile, younger thinkers may be "lost" dealing with bodies of knowledge that some seniors are conversant in.
Advanced age and having "lost it" don't always track accordingly. At some point, we must acknowledge that variables exist, and hard & fast cut-off rules cannot be completely trusted. Variables do exist. Each of us is a "one of" case to be decided individually on objective evaluation, if doubts arise. Expect surprises!
At 65 I could still sit cross - legged and ride my horse every day. At 70 I have a knee replacement and I ride once a week. Animal lovers need not worry; my grandchildren basically have a free horse. Hmm...another sign of seniority, you watch your grandchildren participate in your sport. I have been happy to take advantage of senior discounts at whatever age, but I never felt truly senior until I was staring down the barrel of what 20 years from now will look like.
"Zorn — I beg to differ with Garry (CQ)"
What does the (CQ) mean?
It’s a signal to copy editors that it’s accurate — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadit_quaestio
Except no publication seems to have copy editors anymore!
EVERYBODY (well, those of us who are not yet "post-literate") is a copy editor now!
Interesting. “CQ” is also Ham Radio code for “I’m looking for someone to talk with” (seek-you). The Morse code for this, done repeatedly like a mantra, is surprisingly soothing :
dah-di-dah-dit dah-dah-di-dah.
The Conan bit killed me. “Hey Grandma! Go wash your ***”
I am not religious but I have woken up in the middle of the night having a thoughts that could be described as having a conversation in my head. And I have had imaginary conversations mid day. If someone who does that personifies that process as having a conversation with God then that is just fine. Whether or not I agree with their ideas is a separate issue. Dismissing someone who frames his thoughy processes that way as crazy is condescending and is not going to help to get anyone to agree with your point of view.
I like to think that I am the superior being in my head conversations and that my opposition is representing the forces of evil. :)
And I agree with you. 61 is not senior citizen age. I voted for 75. Which is the inverse of my own age. And yes, I know I am approaching (or already there is some cases) senior status.
Wow, those racist and anti-Semitic comments from CWB readers. I guess not surprising from what I know about CWB, but man, some people just sit with some serious hate and rage in their heads.
Also, as for mocking someone's religion. I disagree (and know I will catch heat for this), I think religious belief is just as a legitimate belief to mock as any other. I mock those that believe in horoscopes, psychics, reiki, or any other number of beliefs that have a complete lack of evidence (and in many of those cases are legitimately been shown by science to be complete bullshit, like reiki).
We mock those that believe in pizzagate or whatever that new one is now about the defense department and Taylor Swift rigging the Super Bowl, and we do so because is completely lacks evidence or sense of reason. But somehow it's not OK to mock someone who believes a guy a long time ago turned water into wine, walked on water, then died and came back to life three days later? Or another guy parted the waters of a whole sea with magical powers?
Besides, Mike Johnson is not different than others who spew the nonsense he claims to believe. He doesn't really believe his own bullshit, he's a charlatan just like Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, Joel Olsteen and the rest of the conmen like them.
Even though I share your sentiment I think they (the religious) would take it as an attack, not on themselves but an attack on everyone they love. The core of religious beliefs is once you pass on from this life you will be rewarded with an afterlife and if they follow their "rules" they will one day pass into the afterlife and be reunited with loved ones. Grandparents, parents, children, friends, even their pets will be their waiting for them. To say that it is false is to say that their loves ones are just gone forever. That their lives will just be gone too. Some people cannot fathom that concept.
I try not to mock individual religious beliefs, that just seems cruel.
But mocking their beliefs is not as cruel as the actions some 'Christians' make in the name of their religion. The Anti-abortion beliefs that they turn into legislation against girls and women. Anti-LGBTQ+ beliefs that they turn into cruelty for those who are not purely heterosexual. The list of these cruelties is long.
Denying their belief in an afterlife is not cruel.. I think it is a waste of time so I don't bother.
True but I don't think some of those actions people take on an individual basis. I'll do my best to articulate.
If someone asks me about religion I will tell them the truth, that a god may exist (I don't know) but certainly not the god of the bible. Why? I'll reply, "have you ever read the bible?" To believe that the bible is the literal word of God is to deny the inaccuracies the contradictions and plain mistakes that to make sense one has to twist logic and reason on its head and just declare "one of God's mysteries". But I never argue to anyone when they are talking about their dead loved ones "being in a better place". That is cruel.
Similarly, I think most people don't take the issues to the individual level. As in "abortion is murder" mentality but if someone they know, and love gets raped or has a tubal pregnancy. they are not thinking their loved one is about to commit murder. On the contrary, most (I say most because I am sure they're exceptions) will have compassion and empathy towards their loved one. The same can be said about someone being gay. Most (again, not all) will change their feelings when a family member comes out as gay. They may still have reservations on a global scale but individually they still love their family member and sometimes will start to change their views.
I guess what it boils down to is most people are not cruel on towards individuals but it is easier to be cruel towards groups. I am sure there is a physiological explanation for that type of thinking.
The idea, as far as I'm concerned, is that you're free to believe what you want, no matter how implausible it may seem to others. But when you make claims based on that belief ,you should expect to have those claims tested, criticized and perhaps even mocked. To give a farily neutral example, you might believe that Fridays that fall on the 13th of the month are unlucky days. That's fine. Stay home wrapped in blankets on those days. But if you claim that they are unlucky days, don't be hurt if someone asks for statistical evidence and then chides you when you come only with anecdotes.
There is a difference between mocking and disagreeing. Yes, I know realistically it happens. Many do it. That doesn't make it right. How do people negotiate or compromise when they are busy mocking each other? Would you want to negotiate with someone who was busy mocking everything in which you believe? Isn't that kind of the basis of all the issues in the Middle East, that Muslims can't accept anyone not believing in Allah?
I agree. Never mock, unless it is good-natured teasing.
I guess my original point got lost in the discussion. Most people central theme to their personal religion is there is someplace better waiting for them, and the people they love, when the time comes to die. When you point out their thinking is flawed, for whatever reason, they see it not as an analysis of their beliefs but as a direct attack on themselves and all the people they love. You are, effectively, telling them there is no meaning to life.
When powerful folks say that their god told them, personally, to be or do something that helps them singularly have greater authority over other people, mocking is the least we should do. Don’t confuse Johnson’s divine “conversations” with the average person’s desire to find meaning in their own mortality.
“with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right.” Something like that
Your post made me think of a song: Life’ll Kill Ya by Warren Zevon. Some of the lyrics:
“Maybe you'll go to heaven,
See Uncle Al and Uncle Lou,
And maybe you'll be reincarnated.
Maybe that stuff's true.
Maybe if you were good,
You'll come back as someone nice,
And maybe if you were bad,
You'll have to pay the price.
But life’ll kill you.
That's what I said.
Life’ll kill you.
Then you'll be dead.
Life will find you
Wherever you go.
Requiescat in pace,
That's all she wrote.”
I beg to strongly disagree. Why mock? You can disagree with others without mocking. Many of the worst wars in the history of mankind were caused by this type of thinking. You are basically saying that mocking is okay because everyone does it. Look at the things you claim you mock. Is everything you believe in that worthy of respect? Why don't we simply have everyone mock each other on every area of belief in which they disagree? Oh, wait- it's already being done by the current Republicans. Attractive, isn't it?
The worst wars in history (probably all wars) were caused by religion, not by someone's perceived mockery. As far as the false equivalency of Republicans mocking people. They mock things like the disabled (remember Cheeto Hitler imitating the reporter?), LGTBQ+ people, women, and the idea of scientific evidence, not those with fantastical and indefensible beliefs. They punch down. Mocking or challenging religion is not picking on the less fortunate or denying facts.
And I'm not saying mocking is OK because everyone does it, I'm saying that it is OK to mock someone who believes he was chosen by some deity to be in a position of power, and that that deity spoke directly to him. Because ultimately a person with that kind of delusion is incredibly dangerous.
And mocking accomplishes what?
I'm not claiming it accomplishes anything. I'm saying there shouldn't be a taboo over mocking someone's religious beliefs any more than doing it for other things people believe without any evidence.
I guess we'll just need to disagree. I see no need and no value in mocking someone else's religious views. To each his own. You're not required to agree. You're not required to believe the same things. But think about this. Mocking someone else projects an air of superiority. Are you that convinced your beliefs and qualities make you that superior to anyone else?
You are misunderstanding completely. I'm saying that putting religion up there as a belief not to be mocked over other things that people have no problem if you mock it - like believing the Democrats run a secret satanic cult where they traffic children or that Bill Gates is implanting chips in us with the vaccines. Religion has the same level of evidence as things people have no problem mocking.
It is the religious who are convinced of their beliefs and feel superior, not me.
Two thoughts on the Northwestern paper.
1) The Bible says that Christians should try to settle disputes internally. The same thing should have been done here.
2) People who do Civil Disobedience should be prepared to be punished. MLK was willing to go to jail. We have politicians who wear their past as a badge of honor.
You may be able to start collecting Social Security at age 62, but if you haven't reached "full retiement age'" those benefits will be reduced. If you were born after 1955 that age has increased to 66+ and will continue to increase monthly each year following, up to age 67 by the birth year 1960.
And the reduction could well be in the thousands of dollars. I didn't even think about retiring until I hit full retirement age, which for me, was 66 and four months (I'm 67 now). Even then I first went down to part-time and fully retired Dec. 1. When to start taking benefits is an incredibly consequential decision.
You are absolutely correct Beth. Your SS benefits accrue an additional 8% from age 65 to 70 for every year you did not take them. I was able to hold off until hitting age 70 and my benefits now are 40% greater than if I had claimed them at age 65.
I know a few people who have been able to do that, David. (And that's a crazy amount of a return!) We probably could have/should have waited a little longer for me, but ... we didn't and it's not a decision we can undo. I was probably four-five months past full retirement age.
Of course, no one knows how long they will live. If you wait until age 70 to start taking Social Security benefits, you lose out on eight years of monthly benefits you would have received (and which you could have invested when you received them) if you had started taking benefits at age 62. Depending on when you die, you may have been better off if you had started taking benefits at age 62 and invested the benefits as you receive them.
That is true. One has to consider the risk on the other side. If a person is heavily dependent on social security in order to meet basic needs, then the other end of that risk is being in your mid 80's and and not having enough to live on. I have been told that the benefit discounts for early retirement are based on actuarial life tables from the 40s when people did not live nearly as long as they do today.
Yes - the actuarial payout is the same regardless of when you start taking benefits, but the personal payout depends entirely on how long you live. And there are clear demographic differences between men and women, whites blacks, Asians and Hispanics, etc. This is one reason why I’m opposed to social security a mandatory program. It penalizes whole populations as well as the medically unlucky. It is grievously unfair.
Variation in residual life expectancy is no where near the biggest source of inequity with social security. The tax burden has varied over time based on the pay as you go nature of funding. And of you throw in Medicare then there are even greater dofferences in expected medical costs between classes of people.
But we have what we have due to historical decisions which seemed reasonable at the time. The question is what to do now. I am confident that the SSA will not be able to keep benefit levels where they are.
i won't argue the fairness of the SS program - tho i do favor a different program of individualized benefit accts.
but SS was designed to be an 'insurance' program - and insurance means risk pooling. in risk pooling there are winners and losers - if you call those who collect on car accident and death claims 'winners'.
again, not saying the impact on identity grps shd not be considered. SS needs an overhaul anyway, as - accd'g to actuarial analyses of SS trust fund going back several yrs - the 'trust fund' will be depleted by the mid-2030s.
you are correct, in that collecting benefits at the age you can begin taking them is a known, and age of death is an unknown. but all investing [as opposed to saving] contains an element of speculation, and risk of loss. as David L stated, 8% risk-free [given the US Treasuries are considered risk-free] for every yr beyond Full Retirement Age up to age 70.
I chose the same route as David did, and made the extra 40% on my monthly benefit. i'm not recommending it for anyone else - just making a bet. accd'g to a google search [grain of salt], i have to live to age 79/80 to break even. for several reasons i like my chances - if i can stay away from errant cars, trains and lightning.
Actually, it depends on at what age you reach full retirement under the Social Security law which, in turn, depends on what year you were born. I reached full retirement at age 66, so if I had waited until age 70 to collect social security, my benefits would have been 132% of my full retirement benefits, not 140%. For people born in 1960 and later, their full retirement age is 67. I believe that if they wait until age 70, they will receive 124% of the full monthly retirement benefit, rather than 140%.
https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/1943-delay.html#:~:text=If%20you%20start%20receiving%20retirement,getting%20benefits%20for%2048%20months.
correct, except it doesn't take into acct the annl CPI increase in benefits, which is what i expect David [and i] was [were] acctg for when we compared the benefit we wd have gotten at age 66 to the benefit we began receiving at age 70.
and i understand tht this annl CPI incr would have been received on the age 66 [FRA] benefit had he begun taking the benefit at age 66.
Given my history, you'll see why I consider it a crap shoot. My father died at 63, never collecting a penny of his SS earnings. My mother died at 95, collecting 30 years of SS.
Ridiculous. Take the money soon as possible and invest it sensibly and then look at the pile of money you’ll already have accumulated before the people who wait till 70 see their first nickel.
I agree that taking the money sooner is better if you either expect not to live to the actuarial number, or if you have a track record of sound saving and investing. For me, another factor is income tax. As long as my wife works, my SS will be taxed at 20-something percent instead of 12%. So I’m waiting for her to retire.
It is definitely not ridiculous. There is plenty of analysis done on how long you have to live to break even with taking retirement early. Most people will be better off not taking it early. The investment returns will not make up for extra payments. Also if you stop working at age 62, and need the money then you can't get any investment return on the SS benefits. If you continue to work, or draw income from your investments, then there could be tax implications of taking SS early which further diminish the benefit.
The (future) payments get larger, but the accumulated value takes a long time to catch up if you wait 8 years to start collecting. If you start collecting at age 70, you'll be in your 80s before the overall amount collected catches up, assuming Social Security as we know it is still around and that you live that long. I agree that it doesn't make much sense to take SS if you're still working, but I retired at 65 (and began collecting SS immediately) and have been very happy with the outcome. May you live 120 years and collect a lot of social security.
My line of work is with those aged 60 and older. The trend is now referring to them as "older adults", but "seniors" is just as fine and not offensive. The only generic term that ruffles their feathers is "elderly". That portrays a picture of grandma in a shawl with a walker. Put that term out to pasture.
Interesting story, my wife delivered our son when she was 42 years old. When I looked at her chart it read “elderly pregnancy”.
In football, players in their late thirties and early forties are “old”. In women’s gymnastics you are considered old in your mid twenties!
Context seems to be important when discussing age.
My high-risk OB and the hospitals where I delivered were kind enough to just label me as having AMA (advanced maternal age)
My grandson's only 2 but I hope when he's old enough to try to figure out what the hell to get a woman who's 62 years old than him what to get for Christmas, he yells, "Gramma! Go wash your ass!" as he hands me a new bidet for for my birthday. (Which isn't on Christmas but I just had a senior-ish moment.)
If he handed you a bidet for your birthday, that kid is as strong as Superman!
“Comically earnest” to think racism could be a provocation…because the state’s attorney’s office is led by a Black woman? Love ya, Eric, but that is absurd.
As to the “senior citizen” question, the answer is obvious: 10 years older than I am, no matter the age!
I love the SunTimes since it hooked up with WBEZ, but some of the article sources have me puzzled. What does "editorially independent section supported by Republic Bank" mean exactly? And on the next page is a big old ad for Republic Bank called a "paid advertorial."
Pat
All the visual tweets are superb! Hard to choose just one.
But as for an age cut-off for any leader: Impossible to institute a one-size-fits-all age when there is no direct relationship between physical and mental-acuity ages. Confusing the two is a thought-trap. Nor does white hair signify that mental incompetence has set in.
Who is that genius of astrophysics confined to a wheelchair who needs a device to communicate? A bright mind in a useless body. Are we to disregard his pronouncements at a certain arbitrary age cut-off? Some "lose it" early, others late. Why deny society the thoughts of anyone smart, just because they have reached an arbitrary age? Moreover, we don't all age equally. Give me cogent oldsters who have proven they are worth listening to, rather than younger alleged experts with faulty reasoning, or a prejudicial outlook.
Stephen Hawking
While folks are discussing whether Donald Trump or Joe Biden are mentally competent or not. Should we turn the mirror on their supporters and question their mental competency?
Old age can reduce a person’s ability to reason, but there are other factors as well, like ignorance, hate, anger or mental illness.
I share the concern that folks here have raised, but the problem is not necessarily solved by a younger candidate. Robert Kennedy Jr. is a wacko, not an old wacko but a wacko none the less.
I am a grumpy old man and I remember the original Kennedy ad (JFK), then this very similar Kennedy ad comes on during the Super Bowl…am I having a senior moment? No, it’s the Robert Kennedy Jr wacko train. Yo Caroline! Slap that boy!
RFK Jr is 70, so he's an old wacko!
At least hew to the correct premise when issuing opinions on age vs. competence, which observes no direct relationship. The bewilderment that can get a person institutionalized knows no age barrier or boundary. It's a trick Fate can play on us. A lucid oldster may lack facility with the latest technological advancement, but once familiar with it he/she is up to speed with younger thinkers. Meanwhile, younger thinkers may be "lost" dealing with bodies of knowledge that some seniors are conversant in.
Advanced age and having "lost it" don't always track accordingly. At some point, we must acknowledge that variables exist, and hard & fast cut-off rules cannot be completely trusted. Variables do exist. Each of us is a "one of" case to be decided individually on objective evaluation, if doubts arise. Expect surprises!
At 65 I could still sit cross - legged and ride my horse every day. At 70 I have a knee replacement and I ride once a week. Animal lovers need not worry; my grandchildren basically have a free horse. Hmm...another sign of seniority, you watch your grandchildren participate in your sport. I have been happy to take advantage of senior discounts at whatever age, but I never felt truly senior until I was staring down the barrel of what 20 years from now will look like.