This board has been migrated to our new platform! Check out the new home page at discussion.fool.com or click below to go directly to the new Board on the new site.
When we set us SS with a retirement age of 65, our life expectancy was not much better. Life expectancy for men was 58. For women, it was 62. SS DID NOT keep untold millions out of poverty at that time as most of the elderly had died before they could ever claim a dime of benefits from it. As an insurance program, it was horrible.Oh man, how come this meme never dies? There are two problems with this story, 1) not true, and 2) doesn't make a lick of sense. Yes, back then life expectancy at birth was 58. But lots of people died before age five back then too. Life expectancy at age 65 was 77.7. That number has increased by only a few years in the ensuring decades. https://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.htmlI get why there might be confusion over life expectancy at birth vs. life expectancy at 65. But where did the rest of it come from? Most elderly died before they could collect?!? Huh? How could this happen with no one knowing about it? Does it actually make any sense to you that millions of taxpayers would be okay paying for a a retirement system that they would never live long enough to use? And if there was no need for it, why would the system be set up like that in the first place? Jiminy.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
My Fool |