On Aug 14, 7:07*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

*"HeyBub" wrote:

.

Regrettably, that has to be done. The retirement age (65), originally, was
greater than the average life expectancy (63). To match the original
conditions, retirement should be raised to about 74.

I never have been able to figure out where that came from because I
haven't been able to find a stat even close to that. The life expectancy
AT 65 (LE65) is what is important anyway.

It's not just the life expectancy at 65 that's important. He claims
the average life expectancy in 1935 when SS started was 63.
That actually sounds a bit high. From what I've seen it could
be more like 61. But in any case, then clearly it's not just
life expectancy at 65 that is important. You have people
paying into SS all their working life. If someone dies at 45,
55, etc, they have contributed for a lot of years and will
not be there to collect. So, the overall lifespan certainly
is of major importance. The rate money would have to
be going into the fund to make it solvent directly depends
on it.

The problem today is that people retiring are getting
significantly more out of SS and Medicare than they
ever paid into it. And with the baby boomers now
collecting, the Ponzi scheme is coming undone.


In the 30s the LE65 was ~10
years. By 2007 it was up to 18.6 years. As it turns out you are right
about 74 being the equivalent.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz