Age Related Subsidy

One of the things that puzzles me are attempts to raise the retirement age, which I think is unnecessary and ignores human reality.

As people age, abilities unfortunately do tend to lessen and it's just not fair to tell someone 65 and older that they should compete against the younger workforce as if that's not true.

And I think the problem is the concept of "retirement" itself, which is not necessary for everyone at 65, and it can be deadly dangerous anyway, as if you go from being highly active to sitting in a rocking-chair doing nothing, you are likely to pass away sooner than later from the doing of nothing.

So rather than cruelly shift the age for "retirement" why not simply shift to an age related subsidy?

The current level of 65 is maintained, and people in advanced countries with social security simply start getting a check when that age is reached regardless of whether they have "retired" or not.

Those who choose to remain in the workforce will help their economies just by working and also would no longer pay into social security, which would be an additional benefit.

We can keep the current level of benefits without adjustment, for those, say, over 55, and evaluate the situation for those under, while noting that the 65 point of beginning of benefits is now locked in, without any reason to move it.

Monetary outlays may be less necessary in the future, with things like universal healthcare, and more efficient age related services, as, for instance, the United States throws away huge amounts of food on any given day.

Also in many areas, public transportation is not as good as in others, keeping more drivers in cars.

In a more efficient city, older citizens could enjoy a higher quality of life with less money if our society took it seriously and focused on reality versus political maneuverings that in the US usually are about cutting taxes for rich people, which is a subsidy as well!

It's just a more stupid one.


James Harris