The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

GOP Minority Leader John Boehner Wants You to Work Until You're 70

If we do that it should be to reform SS and medicare, not to pay for the wars.
 
It needs done. Social security is unsustainable as it stands.

As far as taxing the rich is concerned, they're already at 35% with a bump up to 39% in income tax here soon. They pay for this country. Now, the percentage of people who pay the highest taxes also have about 40% of the country's wealth, so the system is fairly fair. But, if there will be a change of tax burden, it should be so those of us in the lower and middle classes pay more and the rich less.

It's also not "to pay for the wars". That's not the way social security works.

We need to do this because social security is too costly. Life expectancy at birth is at 75.78 and 80.81. Full benefits start at 67 now. Moving it three years is not at all unreasonable. Life expectancy was substantially lower when social security was enacted. We all know this, so why are we fighting it? What about moving the age back three years for people who won't be worrying about it until 2030 is so unreasonable. With medical advances, even men may be looking at life expectancy at birth in the 80s in this country by then.
 
I guess those of you who don't think moving the retirement age to 70 is so bad haven't been working very long. Consider, however, how many people end up unemployed after 50 years of age. With the decline in manufacturing, there are loads now. While they would not be affected by such a proposal, there is little to suggest that this trend won't continue.

The way many employer health insurance works also gives employers an incentive to dump older employees. Health insurance premiums are often based on the experience of the pool of employees being insured. In other words, older and sicker workers cost employers more money to insure.

I sure as hell don't want to work until 70.
 
This is just a sensible reform. People live longer, so the time they work should logically increase, too. Otherwise they're just going to be sitting around for a decade or three.

What this isn't is a way to keep Social Security working. You cannot cut your way out of that one. Reform has to be primarily revenue increase-based, the biggest winner in that department being increasing (or maybe eliminating) the income cap.
 
LoveIsNow said:
What this isn't is a way to keep Social Security working. You cannot cut your way out of that one. Reform has to be primarily revenue increase-based, the biggest winner in that department being increasing (or maybe eliminating) the income cap.
Click to expand...

Actually, yeah you could, though just this step alone probably wouldn't be enough.

But whether you cute enough expenditures or raise enough revenue, the result would be the same.
 
This is why Boehner will be Speaker in November, he tells it like it is \:/
 
hotatlboi said:
Actually, yeah you could, though just this step alone probably wouldn't be enough.

But whether you cute enough expenditures or raise enough revenue, the result would be the same.
Click to expand...

Well, you can cut anything you want, my point was that, in my opinion, the cuts necessary to make Social Security viable would weaken it so much it would hardly be worth having, so the result would not be the same. The only way to have a robust social security program is to raise the revenue. Not that there isn't fat to cut, because there certainly is, but eventually you start cutting into the meat.
 
Raising the cap to 70 is fine (and quite frankly, needed); throwing the money away in the graveyard of empires instead of shoring up Social Security is not.
 
JockBoy87 said:
0% score from HRC is hard to beat :rolleyes: and hardly a thing to celebrate.
Click to expand...

LGBT rights should be the deciding factor when determing who's fit to become Speaker? I understand you see it that way but Pelosi's 11% approval rating is the real thing to celebrate!
 
I don't think any company would want to keep an employee around for that long. Some companies get tired of people when they hit their 30-year mark, and there's still at least another 15 years left before retirement with the new cap. Keeping oldies around for so long means paying someone a lot of money simply out of seniority. With new blood being as talented as they are these days, I'd be worried that the 60 year olds are the first to go when it comes to lay offs.
 
SuperPsyze said:
I'd be worried that the 60 year olds are the first to go when it comes to lay offs.
Click to expand...

Maybe there should be a law to prohibit age discrimination in the US. :cool:
 
JockBoy87 said:
Indeed, an increasing trend over the last 20 years of senior workers entering the labor market has not decreased their standing as the age group with the lowest unemployment rate.
Click to expand...

Does that indicate that the ADEA has proven itself to be an effective law? (Or could the relative level of “senior” employment be the result of something else?)
 
JockBoy87 said:
The cause of lower unemployment?
Or the cause of more seniors staying in the labor force?
Or the cause of one despite the other?
Click to expand...

I was simply musing about why the older workers seem more likely to be selected or retained in jobs, relative to their younger counterparts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top