Is Retirement a Right or a Privilege?

Reader Comments

Back to blog

Hi,I don't have a cell phone,neither my wife.I get 1,053 after medicare gets their share.Wife still works.After I pay all taxes an insurances,electric,phone bill.I still can put away 3,500 to go into a investment each yr.I have tentitious,arthritis, so,I'm not trying to,get$$from a jo.So,I exercize,like it's a job,an 5 months,now it's getting easier,to except.Ct. is a high cost of liveing state.

Lloyd of CT 8:12PM April 30, 2009

You are on the right track, but have been confused by all the lies in the media about Social Security being in trouble. It is not, and will never be... except if you let the people "fix" it.

You have paid for your Social Security, there is no need for games like not paying "rich" seniors. Social Security is not welfare. It is an insurance policy for workers paid for by workers. There is no need to change it. It can pay for itself forever... with an nearly invisible tax increase from time to time to pay for the fact that we will be living longer.

You can live on Social Security if you have your priorities straight. It is not intended to let you retire "Love Boat" style, but it will let you retire when you need to. The bad guys don't want to let you retire any more. They have figured out that if you are going to live longer, you can keep working until you no longer make a profit for the boss. But they don't want you to have the choice.

coberly of OR 12:40PM April 30, 2009

You are on the right track, but have been a bit confused by all the lies in the media.

You have paid for your social security benefits. There is no need to come up with a game like not paying the wealthy or making some other change that would destroy Social Security as insurnace for workers paid for by workers. I can explain this in more detail than you could stand to listen to. But meanwhile, instead of just expressing your opinion on a blog, you need to find out the facts and DON'T LET THEM CHANGE SOCIAL SECURITY. any change at this time would just be a subtle way to destroy it.

you can live on your benefits by the way. i do, and they are near the low end of the benefit structure. you just have to be a little sensible about what is important in life. Your Social Security tax leaves you plenty of money to invest in "high earning" investments. SS insurance for the basics in case the sure thing on wall street doesn't work out.

coberly of OR 12:33PM April 30, 2009

Yes, retirement is a right: to live your senior years with dignity; to have basic healthcare, food, a roof over your head, safety, to live without constant anxiety about how you will survive. Many have not been able to save over the years because they 1) didn't earn enough to cover basics, 2) didn't have the knowledge to know how to invest, 3) were maxed out caring for their own parents while raising a family, 4) lost a large portion of what they did save through economic times such as we are experiencing now, 5) had medical bills to pay out of pocket for medications or costly treatments or special needs family members, 6) through divorce or death of a spouse lost benefits, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Just wait until it is time for you to retire. What will the value of the dollar be then? Will you be disabled and forced to retire on disability (or who knows what). Or maybe you will be required to work to age 80 before receiving full benefits. And can you find a job to supplement your income? Will you have the stamina, physical or mental competence to work? If you had to sell your house now to scale down, could you? and what would it be worth? And above all, how does our society treat its elders? Emily, you are wet behind the ears. Don't begrudge what you have to pay into SS/Medicare. Someone probably made sacrifices to have you, raise & educate you and support you until you could make it on your own.

If the government can waste as much as it does, why should I be penalized by having to worry about retirement benefits being reduced or taken away? Social Security is a trust fund which is not to be dipped into to fund a war or anything else but retirement and special needs (ex: disability, dependents) It is not to be part of the annual budget. It was meant to stand alone.

A suggestion: those seniors who make over X dollars would not receive actual SS dollars but still would retain the credit on their record. Then, if and when they really needed SS, they would receive it. Only their spouses and dependents would receive from their credit after they died, and again, only if they need it.

Beverly Jansheski, RN of VA 12:14AM April 30, 2009

Retirement is a paid-for right.

if you are talking about Social Security, your contributions pay for your retirement. the "pay as you go" feature simply provides a way to protect your savings from inflation. it also provides a modest "interest" by being indexed to wage growth. this is interest you earn by contributing to the overall prosperity of the country in ways that do not involve buying stocks and bonds. think of the schoolteacher who works harder than she needs to to teach you to read.

the same needs to be said about private retirement plans. if your boss "paid for" your retirement... that was because it was easier for him to give you compensation for your work by deferring it than by giving it to you to save for your own retirement. that is EARNED income, not a gift. Because individual investments are so risky, Theresa Ghilarucci (When I Am Sixty Four) proposes a government managed plan to supplement -- not replace -- Social Security. This would still be a retirement that YOU PAY FOR. Don't let them take it away from you.

Social Security can pay for itself forever with a one tenth percent tax increase. About 35 cents per week in any given year.

coberly of OR 5:55PM April 29, 2009

Yes, to your question as to whether retirement is a right. But there is a larger question here.

How long would you push your parents to work? The issue is ability to retain jobs, as well as the physical and mental ability to work. Many of our seniors appear ready, able and wiling to work and our government encourages that as they continue to raise complete retirement ages. However, what of these who do not meet the above criteria, and are unable to work for a variety of reasons? Perhaps they should be exposed on the mountaintop the way ancient people did with babies who were "flawed?"

It all comes down to the moral issue of whether people are valuable. There are those who care about our responsibility to fetuses. What about seniors who are poor, ill, infirm or alone and those who die from malnutrition or are homeless. Yes, often they can't help thenselves, the same way babies can't.

Look to those who saved and lost most of their money in this latest economic disaster, are they to be exposed on the mountaintop? And those who scrimped and worked and only made enough to raise their families, perhaps they should be exposed as well. Perhaps we should develop a test to determine worthiness of society's care. Perhaps we should give these a subsistance existence to show them we are merciful, but still Calvinistic enugh to know that those who are truly worthy would succeed. Is this the way to prove our basic human vales? I thought we were better than that. If not, why do we try to export our way of life to the rest of the world?

L Sacfile of NY 5:20PM April 29, 2009

Retirement most certainly NOT a right. There is no way that a program giving everyone a government benefit large enough to enjoy leisure during their post employment years. In fact we, as a society, are fortunate to have social security system which provides a retirement benefit significantly higher than just providing a roof over one's head. If one studies the history of our SS system, he/she learns that is what was intended by the original bill.

The fact that so many people have only their SS check to exist on is unfortunate but SS was never intended to provide a comfortable retirement and too many people, during their working years, mentally thought of SS as a retirement plan and failed to do any savings at all.

I would ramp the SS benefit for anyone who falls below the poverty level by the difference between their present benefit and 125% of the poverty level. And keep them at the 125% level as long as they survive.

We are a spoiled society and the hard times, I think, has made the younger people realize that savings are essential.

The people I feel sorry for are those who lost their retirement savings in their 401Ks. They were sold a bill of goods that stocks must always go up. What should be created is a govt pension plan and forcing people . Such a plan in addition to the present solcial security benefit should provide a decent standard of living during retirement but not give people a fancy retirement.

Harold Engelman of NC 4:50PM April 29, 2009

Provocative question. I commend you for asking itl, as long as it is not meant as an attack on basic retirement entitlements. Some European countries send all retirees the same check when they retire, not differing amounts. That could be considered. But we live in a democratic, capitalistic society where opportunities are to be equalized, but outcomes, necessarily. AARP has had for years the position that about 25% of retirees will have it made, while another 25% will probably never be able to "retire" without working and/or seeking some sort of assisted income. That leaves about 50% in the middle, where all kinds of options might occur. Folks could retire for some years, then go back to work. Relocation to a foreign country can reduce expenses, as can relocation to a less-expensive area of the U.S. Retirement is a phase of life full of options and variances. I don't think the issue is whether one "deserves" to retire as much as it might be when someone "can" retire, which is a whole other question. That is where Lady Luck can plan a significant role.

Again, the question you raise is provacative, as long as it is not meant to be coming from the right with its attack on Social Security and Medicare benefits, which I believe must be solidly supported by our President and members of Congress FOREVER!

George Fulmore of CA 2:51PM April 29, 2009

What every worker really needs is to know is that his or her Social Security benefits will be protected and even strengthened so that when the time comes to make the transition (notice I'm not using the term "choice" because it rarely is)to full or partial retirement, financial hardship doesn't supercede quality of life and the ability to maintain one's independence.

Good reading on retirement income adequacy here: http://www.ncpssm.org/news/archive/vp_cutting_ss_benefits/

Pamela Causey of MD 12:50PM April 29, 2009

As another reader points out, retirement may not be either a right or a privilege ... sometimes it's a necessity. There are many jobs that simply wear people out by the time they are 60. What would you propose we do with them? Throw them away?

David Krear of MD 11:58AM April 29, 2009

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Back to blog

Planning to Retire

Senior editor Emily Brandon tells you how to get ready financially for retirement and to make your golden years the best they can be.

advertisement

Our retirement readiness calculator will provide a rough idea of how long your retirement savings and income will last.


advertisement