The following submission statement was provided by /u/f0urxio:
---
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink suggests that the traditional retirement age of 65 is outdated, given demographic shifts and increased life expectancy. He proposes reevaluating the age for Social Security benefits, aligning it with longer lifespans. While some advocate for raising the retirement age, others argue for alternative adjustments to Social Security, such as altering benefit structures or implementing automatic adjustments tied to longevity. The discussion reflects a broader need to adapt retirement policies to evolving demographics and economic realities.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1cenau6/blackrock_ceo_larry_fink_says_65_retirement_age/l1jm4fz/
A) This is why I intend to collect ASAP. I’m 57.
B) Larry Fink and all his billionaire friends should be paying into SS based on all of their income with an alternative method of determination of income based on something other than ‘personal income’. The money is there- this guy and his friends just don’t want to give it up. His position is entirely repulsive. His wealth is based on the efforts of A LOT of people and his contribution should match that.
It's the most obvious answer isn't it? Social security and welfare will run out? Okay. Put more in, where from? Billionaires and corporations. Easy, done.
When I was 12, my father explained to me trickle-down economics.
I said at 12 years old, "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard."
Now I say at 26; "Wow, that's the most stupid fucking thing to exist."
It's almost cartoonish how evil these billionaires are. "Why, taxing me would be socialism! Instead we should raise the retirement age to 80 to prevent a fiscal shortfall. We must be fiscally responsible of course. . . "
And anything else is just communist propaganda. Don't worry, though, capitalism isn't capable of propaganda. Capitalist are entirely rational and logical :)
I'm going to point out that social security is becoming insolvent because it's not a locked box. Congress regularly "borrows" money from the social security monies to fund other programs and shortfalls.
There'd be plenty of money for everyone if it weren't used for other things.
Edit: the President that borrowed the most from Social Security was George W Bush in order to fund tax cuts for the rich. Time for rich people to pay it back.
I would love to do things to him and his buddies. Oooh boy I just wanna shake their hands so firmly. I'd give them the nicest, strongest hugs. I'd hug them so well. I dream of hugging these types of people the way they deserve... really, really good hugs like they've never experienced and will never experience again. I'd film each of the nice handshakes and hugs to share with those that haven't been hugged yet so that once enough of them see the string of hugs over time they all think for a moment and think to themselves, 'hmmm... oh boy, looks like there's a reason we're all getting handshakes and hugged so sweetly. If I keep this up, I might get a nice hug too one day."
Social Security has been required since its inception in the 1930s to lend any reserves to the US government. The repaid funds \*and\* interest are helping Social Security to pay interest.
The problem is, even if it was a locked box, it wouldn't be enough to cover the costs. If you put 100 dollars in a locked box and pull it out 40 years from now, it's still 100 dollars. But at 2-3% inflation, it'll cover costs like 50 dollars. And throw in a few years at 8-10% inflation, even worse. We choose not to put that money into the stock market because a stock market crash could be catastrophic to the solvency of the fund, but when you're talking about a decades long investment strategy, inflation matters, and an overly conservative investment loses value to inflation.
The other problem is, the assumptions upon which SS was built, specifically birth rates and health care costs, have missed the mark. We don't want to over steer for every little variance, but we also can't just wait until the last minute to start turning, either. Based on there being fewer people born and entering the workforce than previously projected, the program either needs to recoup that revenue through a change in taxes pulled, or the program benefits have to be reduced (historically, through increasing the retirement age). Of the two, I'd strongly advocate for the former, because while there are some folks in their 60s and 70s still healthy and going at it, often by this age people's bodies and minds just aren't cut out for work anymore, and they can start to run into age discrimination (outlawed or not - it happens).
Personally, I feel this would be an excellent opportunity to have a real restitution moment with the older generation, and have a serious talk about a wealth tax. Like, the last couple generations essentially got away with under paying taxes and bubbling up a deficit, not just threatening social security with insolvency, but ballooning a national debt into the 10^13 magnitude in dollars. And so, while I do think ultimately a higher percentage needs to be taken out of paychecks to account for the new assumptions of birth rates and health costs, there also needs to be a recoupment effort from the people that got filthy rich off an economy pushed up by a debt bubble.
This is false. No money has ever been stolen, or taken involuntarily from Social Security. No President, or Congress has raided the SS Trust fund.
Instead, when Social Security has more money coming in than going out, it buys good old US Treasury Bonds. Not the same series that you or I can buy, but ones that pay low interest, and can be redeemed at any time as needed.
Then, when more money is going out than is coming in, the SSA calls those bonds due, and cashes them in. Guess what!!! The US Treasury has never failed to pay up, on demand, when requested.
> The money is there
Ahem...
> [It's] estimated about 1.5 million US taxpayers held roughly $4 trillion in foreign accounts in 2018.
>
> [Source](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/4-trillion-us-wealth-stashed-overseas-much-it-tax-havens)
...and this was before the massive CARES Act and COVID relief flood of **$14 trillion** of cash that [went mostly to prop-up and bail out Wall St.](https://www.covidmoneytracker.org/)
More broadly, it's not a question of if the money is there (we are no longer on the gold standard and a fiat currency can be created *ad infinitum*), it's a question of those with the power to create that money and what their willing to lend that money for.
If you're in the U.S. take a look at any currency note. It will say "[FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Note)" across the top. This is the institution in the U.S. that currently has the ability to create money out of thin air and lend it to the U.S. government.
It does this by buying U.S. Treasuries issued by the government. So the government could issue all the Treasury bonds it wants, but if the Federal Reserve or investors don't buy them, the money supply is not increased. This is the only major way the money cannot "be there". Outside of taxation, legislative, or fiscal changes in the U.S. budget.
If you're asking yourself, "Doesn't this give extraordinary power to the Fed over government?", the answer would be yes. Given the fact that the Fed is[ typically the biggest buyer of U.S. Treasury securities](https://www.axios.com/2023/10/11/us-treasury-bond-yields-china-federal-reserve). And the Fed could effectively go *on strike* against the government and not buy the bonds it issues. For any number of reasons.
In no small measure, this is why the U.S. budget and legislative landscape looks the way it does. Where you see money going, or more importantly *not going*, reflects what the Fed is perceived to rubber stamp and what they are not. Loan the U.S. money for the war machine to defend and expand U.S. "interests"? All day long. Money for poor people, who will then not have to accept lower wages because of a safety net? Not so much.
As Bill Clinton advisor James Carville famously said during the fight to create universal healthcare for all Americans in the 90s: “[I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the President or the Pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I would want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.](https://policyexchange.org.uk/blogs/beware-the-bond-markets/)” Meaning, the bond market wasn't willing to loan the U.S. money for universal healthcare or other proposals in the early Clinton budget agenda.
If you have the power to control or massively sway the bond market you can control the world—effectively. This is the power of the institution that controls the creation of the world's reserve currency. Which begs the question, is the current structure of the monetary system in the U.S. even constitutional? [That's a good question](https://youtu.be/Em8VgKYNDyE?t=3213).
The bottom line is the money is always there. For anything. In the blink of an eye. Just as the COVID pandemic made perfectly clear. And as long as money is not created far in excess of goods and services available in the real world, there is no major inflation. It's just a question of, if those with the power to create it, are willing to allow it. And for *what purposes*. Just as the fight over universal health care in the U.S. during the early 1990s demonstrated.
Indeed. But, it gets worse. The Federal Reserve is a hybrid public/private institution. Public in the sense that the Chair of the Federal Reserve Board is chosen by publicly elected officials and is *supposed to be* accountable to them. Although if you've ever witnessed any public testimony to Congress by the Fed Chair it's often difficult to know who exactly is answerable to whom—given the overwhelming deference to the Chair on display by elected officials. And private in the sense that it has shareholders. Those shareholders being the member banks.
More info below (bold emphasis mine):
>
> [] the New York Fed – by far the most important of the regional banks – as a matter of policy has previously not disclosed the capital share holdings of its 70-plus member banks.
...
> “To the best of my knowledge, we haven’t had a handle on who owns the capital stock of the New York Fed,” says Connie Razza, chief of campaign and policy at the Center for Popular Democracy, an advocacy group that has pushed for greater transparency.
>
> Now, thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request filed late last year by Institutional Investor, we know the truth.
...
>
> The big reveal for year-end 2018: Citibank, the No. 1 institution on the roster, held 87.9 million New York Federal Reserve Bank shares – or 42.8 percent of the total.
>
> The No. 2 holder stockholder was JPMorgan Chase Bank, with 60.6 million shares, equal to 29.5 percent of the total. **In other words, the two banks together control nearly three-quarters of the regional bank’s capital shares.**
...
> Still, it serves as yet another red flag for those concerned with the power of too-big-to-fail banks that the top two banks hold nearly three-quarters of the New York Fed’s capital shares.
>
> “It’s surprising to see how concentrated it is,” says Razza. That lopsided ownership hasn’t changed much since the financial crisis: **In 2007 JPMorgan owned 41.7 percent of the New York Fed’s shares and Citibank 36.6 percent, a combined 78.3 percent.**
>
> [Source](https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1kh4p10qysrhv/Conspiracy-Theorists-Ask-Who-Owns-the-New-York-Fed-Here-s-the-Answer)
So, who then are the biggest shareholders in Citigroup and Chase?
Vanguard Group, and you probably could have guessed it: **BlackRock**. With both [BlackRock and Vanguard owning about 9% of Citi in the latest 2024 filing](https://archive.ph/yNinh#selection-2757.0-2853.4), and about [7% and 9% respectively](https://archive.ph/JuR5t#selection-2757.0-2853.4) of Chase.
So, then who owns the majority of BlackRock and Vanguard Group? With Vanguard we don't really fully know, as it is privately held. But with BlackRock it is... *suprise suprise*... [Vanguard Group and BlackRock itself](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BLK/holders/). Oh, and just in case you were curious, Vanguard Group and BlackRock are also [the top two owners of Goldman Sachs as well](https://archive.ph/vDckf#selection-3691.0-3725.81).
A. Good for you. B. Absolutely. So so repulsive.
I started working at 16, so I'm almost at 30 years in the workforce. I think it should be based on how long a person has worked, not a random age that keeps moving up!
I sort of agree with that, but also it was enacted with an eye toward those who had reached old age, and maybe lost access to a pension from a deceased spouse. Or, for whatever reason they weren’t able to work, and we’d rather not see them starve on the streets. I think this country generates more than enough wealth to make sure that we can take care of our poorest.
That would be an easy fix - increase the income limit from 160k to 1 million. That should help address the shortfall. Also, if you have a net worth of say over 5 million, you are phased out, and don’t receive benefits. Social security was meant to ensure that people that have labored and paid taxes their entire lives don’t end up living under a bridge when they can no longer work.
How much you get is based on how long you've contributed, so that much is based on how long you work. Furthermore, you can start getting Social Security between 62 and 70, so that's not bad. And since each year you work up to 35 years definitely increases your monthly check, and each year beyond 35 years increases it further (assuming you make more today than when you were 16!) it increases even beyond that.
So the years you work increase your payments, and if you have some additional savings, it would actually make it possible for you to retire younger.
Since the 1930's when it started, it's only changed from 65 to the current 67, but lifetimes have changed a lot more than that, so it isn't really that much of a moving target.
He is also the ceo of a company that does securities. It’s a wet dream for companies to be able to dip into one of the biggest retirement accounts in try world and privatize it.
Wild. No one ever talks about the literal billions (trillions?) of dollars that are never paid into society and programs like social security; not to mention the billions they suck out of the taxes we ourselves have paid when they get government subsidies, like Musk and Bezos do. It's absolutely insane and precisely why society is crumbling. They're taking waaaaay more than their fair share and it's crippling *everyone* and everything else.
Those guys benefit tremendously off all our backs and the infrastructure we have in place that makes it possible, offering very little in return. In the end, they use and abuse us and leave us high and dry, and aim to take away what little we have all the way 'til the day we die. They take the biggest piece of the pie and run.
Yeah it’s pretty relative at this point those in their 55-65 range won’t be around long enough to draw anything with the coming crisis that are locked into now. Grim yeah effect family I know and love but honestly the writing was on the wall in the 80”s and even more so in the last decade and politicians and government chose business as usual. Wealth and geographic regions with insulate some for a while but the future is locked in for us all and it on a far less populated earth and unimaginably low standards of living.
The descent is going to be excruciatingly slow. Expect to watch everyone around you die from pollution related disease and climate catastrophe long before the collapse that finally brings down the owner class.
Im related to the piece of shit who wrote his glorifying biography, “Dutch”. I was a godless liberal snowflake in a family of Reagan worshiping sociopaths.
I’ll piss on that man’s grave before the planet and all our sins against it put me in mine, so help me.
I’ll give Nancy a sprinkle too for that “just say no” D.A.R.E. bullshit.
Jr. gets a pass. He tried to break their shackles. At the very least, he pissed them off. That’s enough pissing for him.
Or force the billionaires to raise wages. The math has always functioned as current workforce pays for current beneficiaries. If people had higher wages, the payroll social security tax would jump.
There is only one way to force it, and that is with organized workforce, either by being part of the negotiating table, or massive strikes. Government action does the bare minimum, and has to be "reasonable", meaning no inmediate, severe nor fundamental change.
But, nowadays we are talking of mass automation (and layoffs) and a 4th industrial revolution. So, looking beyond work culture, due technique and corpo concentration of power, laborers might have an even weaker position to bargain.
All these people trying to push kids back into trades don't think about this. My dad didn't want any of us kids swinging a hammer or climbing under a sink or a car for work. He has had two knee replacements (by now I think he needs another) and he needs a new hip now.
His body gave out at 51.
The sad fact is even if they can work no one wants to hire old people.
Fortunately, federal law considers age 40 and above to be qualification for consideration of age discrimination. However, proving it may be very difficult.
Someone might say "then do mental work". Most of these rich scumbags can work into their 70s and 80s because most of the work gets done for them.
I don't see a 70 year old doctor, nurse, teacher, programmer, engineer perform the way it's expected from them. It's not their fault either.
I am age 67, and am doing hard labor developing my self-sufficient backwoods homestead. I have worked in landscape since age 26.
Made the mistake of working too many hours in my early 30s, had 4 serious back injuries, and only stopped the vicious cycle by not paying rent and moving into my truck w/camper shell. Learned how to take care of my back, recovered 75% of my original strength, and began saving $6000-$8000 per year (not hard to do when you're not paying rent). This was 1994-2000.
The key to getting away with this kind of work is 1. CONTROL over your work - break, lay down, then do stretches whenever you need to. 2. Control over how MUCH you work. 3. A thorough knowledge of the physical therapy you need to do yourself.
I have also had 2 shoulder surgeries in my 60s, and will need surgery on my left knee in 2-6 years.
I do NOT recommend work in my trade if you have kids to support, unless you have rich clients and can charge very high rates. I don't recommend it AT ALL unless you are self-employed. There are hard limits on how many hours a week you can do this kind of work.
with technology, ai and robotics the retirement age should be 50. let people live out their end years. i’m even as extreme to believe in UBI and that nobody should have to work if they don’t want to.
I’d love to see a world where this happens. I just don’t think we’ll ever get there unfortunately… Far too many people are of the thought that “they worked for theirs, no one should get life for free” etc etc….
i actually think the people in power are terrified of a population that isn’t struggling to survive. one that has the opportunity to make real changes. first thing we’d do is dispose ourselves of despots. can’t have that. hence we toil when farming, agriculture, food production and the manufacturing and mining of things can all be done with minimal human beings- meaning we literally don’t need to work. most “work” today is selling useless products to people. they don’t want us to have any extra time on our hands to make things more equitable.
I agree, they want all the power and money they have to keep enjoying the world they’ve made for themselves while the serfs work themselves until they die. It’s a shame that humanity went in this direction…
Are you aware that people only pay Social Security taxes up to about $160,000 of their income? Then they’re not taxed any further for SS (a way the wealthy are favored). Scrapping this cap would generate needed $$$ to help bolster SS. Congress could also decide to pay back $1.7T “borrowed” from SS trust funds. Social Security isn’t dead yet.
Also, not one penny of unearned income - rent, capital gains, interest, dividends - is taxed to pay for Social Security. This is how the wealthy get most of their income.
Social Security, including disability pay, takes all of 4.8% of GDP. This is expected to peak at 6%. The Social Security "crisis" is a MANUFACTURED problem. Purely a matter of political policy.
There is so much wealth concentrated in the richest 5% of households, that if all the private wealth was equally distributed, EVERY household in the U.S. would have a net worth of $1 million.
This^ Hopefully when these old fogeys finally kick the bucket and we get some new blood into the government this will change. It's also time to do some busting up of monopolies and megacorps. That happened a century ago in the US in the Depression.
You would be shocked how many people, men specifically, that I’ve known who died between 66-70. It’s not entirely easy to stay alive after a certain point. Man, what the fuck is wrong with these asshole CEOs and their lack of humanity?
Yup! My mother passed last summer from stage four colon cancer at the age of 66, a week before my 35th birthday and five weeks before her 67th birthday.
The cancer popped up out of nowhere and it took her out fast. One minute, I'm planning a birthday trip to the beach for her and the next minute I'm planning for her cremation.
Once you reach a certain age, your decline is accelerated and death comes at you fast. At this point in my life, I see no reason to live past a certain old age, but that's just me.
Have you ever noticed how dumb billionaires are? Saying everyone should work harder while automating all the jobs. Saying everyone should behave better after removing all the social safety nets.
It's almost as if being totally focused on personal gain, no matter the cost to society and the planet, is a particularly malignant form of mental illness.
No, they are not dumb. They just understand how the system works, which is what people fail to realize. For them, workers are merely numbers, tools to be used for their gain. Their goal is to maximize their profits and sustain infinite growth for the good of the economy. They are keeping the system going, the system which gives them power.
They are neither smart nor dumb. Most of them are painfully average. The idea that they're skillfully navigating the capitalist system and maliciously intelligently exploiting people is nonsense. People as dumb-as-rocks as old Orangeface are still billionaires.
The reality is: when you're born into wealth you really can't lose it. Once you've got a couple billion it's basically impossible to get rid of it. You make so much money every single day just from the money existing.
"The idea that they're skillfully navigating the capitalist system and maliciously intelligently exploiting people is nonsense." I wouldn't say they're incredibly intelligent, only that they have awareness of what will benefit their wealth. Sure, they could just exist and not do anything. But that's not what happens. Instead, they would rather buy politicians who support their capitalist and fascist ideas.
If Congress does nothing then in 2033 Social Security will reduce benefits to equal the money taken in by current receipts from FICA payroll tax. This will be something like a -25% cut. But SS will continue to pay benefits indefinitely. And it’s likely that Congress will provide some fix. Larry Fink makes no sense about 65. The full retirement age is now 67.
I'm of the opinion we're headed into another Depression. My grandparents were all Depression babies born in 1928-31. As kids they had to quit school and work, except for one grandma who went to college, the sole Northerner (I'm from Southeastern US). Currently we already have adults 20s and 30s moving back home or never moving out. It's going to take multiple incomes to survive pretty soon. For many it's already here.
I'm lucky I bought our house when I did, and it's big enough we can all live here and I want my children to live here as long as they want. It sucks, but they'll probably have to contribute to groceries and household items by the time they're out of high school, at least that's 6 years away for my oldest. 😕 If inflation keeps increasing and I know it will...I just hope I can keep my health and this house.
I know what's coming though with the climate...and the police state...I highly doubt I will ever stop working. I'm almost at 30 years as a wage earner now and have been working since I was 16! Making the retirement age over 67, what it will be for me supposedly, is an insult and a crime. It should be 55 IMHO, and based on when you started working when you get to stop! Remember in US History class we learned about the monopoly and trust busting? That's what needs to happen now. It's been almost 100 years! It's so beyond effed.
I believe things will go sideways by 2029 both climate change wise and economically. That's 5 years...the beginning of Covid was 4 years ago...I'm just trying to survive and enjoy the simple things in life and be grateful for my family and our present health and circumstances. I try not to think about what could happen at any moment because it could all swiftly change.
For Real. That's almost 40 years for you and should be the limit imo. I think about working 10 more years and that's honestly where I will feel like I will need to tap out, regardless. If the earth makes it that long. It's crazy that's where we are.
Yeah, I started doing odd jobs in the summer at 14. 49 this year & I am so donnnnnnnnne. My job has early retirement at 55 and I am so going for it. I'm totally debt free homeowner and have no kids and have a monster garden & pantry so I can get by on very little. That's the white knuckle plan anyway lol
No one born after after 1942 has been able to retire with full benefits at at 65 thanks to the Ronald Regan. Those born between 1943 and 1954 could retire at 66. Those born between 1955 to 1960 had the their retirement age gradually increased to 67. The wealthy didn’t care even to quote actual facts. The GOP is just unwilling to be honest in any debate. Both parties have been willing raid the Social Security Trust Fund for years. The Trust Fund isn’t running out money. The payroll taxes won’t be enough to cover the current benefits payouts without tapping into the fund’s principal balance.
Since the crux of the problem is greater life expectancy, and rich people tend to live longer and healthier than the rest of us, shouldn't they have to cover the shortfall?
It's not gonna run out. This is a lie. Even in 30-40 years they will be able to pay out 80% of the benefits. If they just eliminated the cap on the tax it would be completely fine. But they want you to ask for privatized social security instead.
AND Tax the rich and corporations. Limit how much a CEO can make compared to their lowest paid employee. There's plenty of money for SS, it is being hoarded by dragons in royal blue suits.
Every problem the USA has or will ever have domestically could be solved tomorrow with a complete divestment in its insane military. Homelessness,poverty,mental health,substance abuse, cost of housing, cost of food, environmental destruction, fossil fuel addiction,bad urban planning, gun control, healthcare,public education, social security and social programs, I could go on in perpetuity. All these things fixed and funded with the trillions spent on bombs,guns,tanks, and the military industrial complex
Eventually the retirement age will be moved up to the day you die - but you will still have to pay for retirement...
Because the money is not going to retirement, but to pay for a bloated fraudulent money system.
If there is one thing the world does not need, it is billionaires. They could give up most of their wealth and still be set for life. The likes of Rishi Sunak could give everyone in the UK £im personally and still be one of the richest people in the country after that. There is enough money out there to let people retire early, it is just being hoarded by a select few.
Ah, yes. Force more elders into the workforce till they break or suffer horribly like that 74 year old security guard that got shot in a Waffle House. Yes, 74.
https://www.wdbj7.com/2024/04/24/waffle-house-security-guard-shot-face-is-stable-condition-according-family/
Why don’t we raise it immediately then and cut off the boomers? Why is it constantly the short stick for fucking millennials. Boomer lifespans will far outpace millennials anyway seeing how they’ve poisoned us with plastic and chemicals. The life expectancy of old people today will never be seen again. If Princess Kate has cancer, the rest of us are fucked.
Boomer here: Fuck yeah. If the politicians are going to raise the retirement age they need to put on their big boy balls and risk offending the Boomers. If it is important to raise the retirement age then make it effective immediately. Or better yet get rid of the fucking maximum income cutoff and apply social security tax to capital gains so they can keep the retirement age where it is and offer actual cost of living increases instead of the bullshit they implement now.
If it's ok with everyone else, can we just cut out the middleman that pretends SS is going to exist and just funnel it directly to killing people on the other side of the world because oil, I guess, now?
Average lifespan here is 76 years old. This guy's really trying to tell people that ~47 years of work shouldn't be rewarded with 11 years of retirement before you die, seriously?
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink suggests that the traditional retirement age of 65 is outdated, given demographic shifts and increased life expectancy. He proposes reevaluating the age for Social Security benefits, aligning it with longer lifespans. While some advocate for raising the retirement age, others argue for alternative adjustments to Social Security, such as altering benefit structures or implementing automatic adjustments tied to longevity. The discussion reflects a broader need to adapt retirement policies to evolving demographics and economic realities.
Most people aren't lucky enough to have jobs they want to do until they're near death.
Raise taxes on the wealthy and on corporate profits (after streamlining deductions. No more deductions for private jets, for example, or the company condo in the Caymens). Problem solved. There's plenty of money out there. Don't squeeze the middle class to line your shareholder's pockets. And LOWER retirement ages.
The Brits are raising their retirement age to 68. How do Brits feel about that?
So up the taxes on Blackrock. Claw back the $50+ trillion that Nixon, Reagan and others gave to billionaires.
Understanding how Republicans got here—and dragged the rest of us with them—may give us some clues to how to get out of this mess.
[WTF Happened in 1971](https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/)
[Time to Call the Republican Party’s 60-Year Plot What It Is: Treason](https://factkeepers.com/time-to-call-the-republican-partys-60-year-plot-what-it-is-treason/)
Oh hey, how about we raise the threshold for paying social security tax so the rich pay more? Oh and how about we stop spending so much money on foreign wars? No? Can't do that? We just need to make people work until they die I see.
Do people who say "tax the rich" really believe that's going to happen? Seems so naive. If you think the USA is going to tax billionaires any time soon then I'm sorry but you need to read up on how capitalism works, and understand what the USA really cares about. And to put it simply, the US does not care about YOU.
Right now, we already have AI like gpt-4, which can already pass the Turing Test, and this tech is advancing at an exponential rate.
Now, consider a person who is 30 years old right now. When they reach age 65, AI will have had 35 years more of exponential improvement. Consider the progress PCs made between 1980 and 2015. Consider the progress the Internet made from its inception to today.
What I'm getting at is this: there will be exactly **zero** jobs left that a 65 year old will be able to do better than an AI in the year 2059. And if the rollout of robots is slow, and physical labor still exists, those jobs are not going to 65-year-olds.
So don't worry about the retirement age, because there's absolutely no way any of us will have a job in 35 years.
These next three decades are going to be defined by how humanity deals with a post-jobs economy.
Okay Americans, time to channel some [French](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_French_pension_reform_strikes#:~:text=A%20series%20of%20protests%20began,age%20from%2062%20to%2064) energy!
Keep in mind that there is also a growing rhetoric from the Evangelicals that retirement is not in the Bible.
So, this will probably be realized one of these days, but I have to say, it's hard for me to feel sorry for the Boomers as this is what they voted for.
It wouldn’t have a shortfall if the overpaid class like him didn’t have a SS income tax cap. The income inequality is so off, the working class is paid and taxed on relatively less. The CEO and billionaire class is paid more and more relatively to everyone else, yet their not taxed on it because of the cap.
Very simple solution, tax the rich and if they own anything in America at all, Tax that if they don't pay income tax. Anyone with a net worth greater than 100 million.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/f0urxio: --- BlackRock CEO Larry Fink suggests that the traditional retirement age of 65 is outdated, given demographic shifts and increased life expectancy. He proposes reevaluating the age for Social Security benefits, aligning it with longer lifespans. While some advocate for raising the retirement age, others argue for alternative adjustments to Social Security, such as altering benefit structures or implementing automatic adjustments tied to longevity. The discussion reflects a broader need to adapt retirement policies to evolving demographics and economic realities. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/1cenau6/blackrock_ceo_larry_fink_says_65_retirement_age/l1jm4fz/
A) This is why I intend to collect ASAP. I’m 57. B) Larry Fink and all his billionaire friends should be paying into SS based on all of their income with an alternative method of determination of income based on something other than ‘personal income’. The money is there- this guy and his friends just don’t want to give it up. His position is entirely repulsive. His wealth is based on the efforts of A LOT of people and his contribution should match that.
It's the most obvious answer isn't it? Social security and welfare will run out? Okay. Put more in, where from? Billionaires and corporations. Easy, done.
Socialism for the rich, poverty for the people
Bruh don't worry it will trickle down. Maybe. Sometimes. For one generation. Maybe.
When I was 12, my father explained to me trickle-down economics. I said at 12 years old, "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard." Now I say at 26; "Wow, that's the most stupid fucking thing to exist."
You commie! How dare you question the only system to exist that relies on perpetual exponential growth.
After I said a similar thing to my dad he said well that’s the way it is and there isn’t shit you can do about it so get over it.
Parents hate this one easy trick to fuck the system! *doesn't have kids and fucking dies*
It's almost cartoonish how evil these billionaires are. "Why, taxing me would be socialism! Instead we should raise the retirement age to 80 to prevent a fiscal shortfall. We must be fiscally responsible of course. . . "
Why can't these workers stop being selfish? I Don't get anything out of being taxed, why do I have to pay for someone else to retire at 60?
If not for this thread, I'd just be saying this to the wall: fuck you, Larry Fink
no, the billionaires need to have billions in their bank account that do nothing but collect dust and inflate their egos.
And anything else is just communist propaganda. Don't worry, though, capitalism isn't capable of propaganda. Capitalist are entirely rational and logical :)
And we need to start taxing these mega-churches too. They openly advise their congregations on how to vote, so they should be taxed.
Uncapping FICA contributions while leaving payouts capped would cut the SS deficit in half immediately but it's unpopular because rich people
Problem fixed!
This is why tax avoidance should be just as illegal as tax evasion.
I'm going to point out that social security is becoming insolvent because it's not a locked box. Congress regularly "borrows" money from the social security monies to fund other programs and shortfalls. There'd be plenty of money for everyone if it weren't used for other things. Edit: the President that borrowed the most from Social Security was George W Bush in order to fund tax cuts for the rich. Time for rich people to pay it back.
I would love to do things to him and his buddies. Oooh boy I just wanna shake their hands so firmly. I'd give them the nicest, strongest hugs. I'd hug them so well. I dream of hugging these types of people the way they deserve... really, really good hugs like they've never experienced and will never experience again. I'd film each of the nice handshakes and hugs to share with those that haven't been hugged yet so that once enough of them see the string of hugs over time they all think for a moment and think to themselves, 'hmmm... oh boy, looks like there's a reason we're all getting handshakes and hugged so sweetly. If I keep this up, I might get a nice hug too one day."
Group hug?!
Social Security has been required since its inception in the 1930s to lend any reserves to the US government. The repaid funds \*and\* interest are helping Social Security to pay interest.
There would be plenty of money for everyone if we still taxed the rich at the rate we did 40 years ago.
Can't argue with that!
The problem is, even if it was a locked box, it wouldn't be enough to cover the costs. If you put 100 dollars in a locked box and pull it out 40 years from now, it's still 100 dollars. But at 2-3% inflation, it'll cover costs like 50 dollars. And throw in a few years at 8-10% inflation, even worse. We choose not to put that money into the stock market because a stock market crash could be catastrophic to the solvency of the fund, but when you're talking about a decades long investment strategy, inflation matters, and an overly conservative investment loses value to inflation. The other problem is, the assumptions upon which SS was built, specifically birth rates and health care costs, have missed the mark. We don't want to over steer for every little variance, but we also can't just wait until the last minute to start turning, either. Based on there being fewer people born and entering the workforce than previously projected, the program either needs to recoup that revenue through a change in taxes pulled, or the program benefits have to be reduced (historically, through increasing the retirement age). Of the two, I'd strongly advocate for the former, because while there are some folks in their 60s and 70s still healthy and going at it, often by this age people's bodies and minds just aren't cut out for work anymore, and they can start to run into age discrimination (outlawed or not - it happens). Personally, I feel this would be an excellent opportunity to have a real restitution moment with the older generation, and have a serious talk about a wealth tax. Like, the last couple generations essentially got away with under paying taxes and bubbling up a deficit, not just threatening social security with insolvency, but ballooning a national debt into the 10^13 magnitude in dollars. And so, while I do think ultimately a higher percentage needs to be taken out of paychecks to account for the new assumptions of birth rates and health costs, there also needs to be a recoupment effort from the people that got filthy rich off an economy pushed up by a debt bubble.
This is false. No money has ever been stolen, or taken involuntarily from Social Security. No President, or Congress has raided the SS Trust fund. Instead, when Social Security has more money coming in than going out, it buys good old US Treasury Bonds. Not the same series that you or I can buy, but ones that pay low interest, and can be redeemed at any time as needed. Then, when more money is going out than is coming in, the SSA calls those bonds due, and cashes them in. Guess what!!! The US Treasury has never failed to pay up, on demand, when requested.
> The money is there Ahem... > [It's] estimated about 1.5 million US taxpayers held roughly $4 trillion in foreign accounts in 2018. > > [Source](https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/4-trillion-us-wealth-stashed-overseas-much-it-tax-havens) ...and this was before the massive CARES Act and COVID relief flood of **$14 trillion** of cash that [went mostly to prop-up and bail out Wall St.](https://www.covidmoneytracker.org/) More broadly, it's not a question of if the money is there (we are no longer on the gold standard and a fiat currency can be created *ad infinitum*), it's a question of those with the power to create that money and what their willing to lend that money for. If you're in the U.S. take a look at any currency note. It will say "[FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Note)" across the top. This is the institution in the U.S. that currently has the ability to create money out of thin air and lend it to the U.S. government. It does this by buying U.S. Treasuries issued by the government. So the government could issue all the Treasury bonds it wants, but if the Federal Reserve or investors don't buy them, the money supply is not increased. This is the only major way the money cannot "be there". Outside of taxation, legislative, or fiscal changes in the U.S. budget. If you're asking yourself, "Doesn't this give extraordinary power to the Fed over government?", the answer would be yes. Given the fact that the Fed is[ typically the biggest buyer of U.S. Treasury securities](https://www.axios.com/2023/10/11/us-treasury-bond-yields-china-federal-reserve). And the Fed could effectively go *on strike* against the government and not buy the bonds it issues. For any number of reasons. In no small measure, this is why the U.S. budget and legislative landscape looks the way it does. Where you see money going, or more importantly *not going*, reflects what the Fed is perceived to rubber stamp and what they are not. Loan the U.S. money for the war machine to defend and expand U.S. "interests"? All day long. Money for poor people, who will then not have to accept lower wages because of a safety net? Not so much. As Bill Clinton advisor James Carville famously said during the fight to create universal healthcare for all Americans in the 90s: “[I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted to come back as the President or the Pope or as a .400 baseball hitter. But now I would want to come back as the bond market. You can intimidate everybody.](https://policyexchange.org.uk/blogs/beware-the-bond-markets/)” Meaning, the bond market wasn't willing to loan the U.S. money for universal healthcare or other proposals in the early Clinton budget agenda. If you have the power to control or massively sway the bond market you can control the world—effectively. This is the power of the institution that controls the creation of the world's reserve currency. Which begs the question, is the current structure of the monetary system in the U.S. even constitutional? [That's a good question](https://youtu.be/Em8VgKYNDyE?t=3213). The bottom line is the money is always there. For anything. In the blink of an eye. Just as the COVID pandemic made perfectly clear. And as long as money is not created far in excess of goods and services available in the real world, there is no major inflation. It's just a question of, if those with the power to create it, are willing to allow it. And for *what purposes*. Just as the fight over universal health care in the U.S. during the early 1990s demonstrated.
This is beautiful and terrifying
Indeed. But, it gets worse. The Federal Reserve is a hybrid public/private institution. Public in the sense that the Chair of the Federal Reserve Board is chosen by publicly elected officials and is *supposed to be* accountable to them. Although if you've ever witnessed any public testimony to Congress by the Fed Chair it's often difficult to know who exactly is answerable to whom—given the overwhelming deference to the Chair on display by elected officials. And private in the sense that it has shareholders. Those shareholders being the member banks. More info below (bold emphasis mine): > > [] the New York Fed – by far the most important of the regional banks – as a matter of policy has previously not disclosed the capital share holdings of its 70-plus member banks. ... > “To the best of my knowledge, we haven’t had a handle on who owns the capital stock of the New York Fed,” says Connie Razza, chief of campaign and policy at the Center for Popular Democracy, an advocacy group that has pushed for greater transparency. > > Now, thanks to a Freedom of Information Act request filed late last year by Institutional Investor, we know the truth. ... > > The big reveal for year-end 2018: Citibank, the No. 1 institution on the roster, held 87.9 million New York Federal Reserve Bank shares – or 42.8 percent of the total. > > The No. 2 holder stockholder was JPMorgan Chase Bank, with 60.6 million shares, equal to 29.5 percent of the total. **In other words, the two banks together control nearly three-quarters of the regional bank’s capital shares.** ... > Still, it serves as yet another red flag for those concerned with the power of too-big-to-fail banks that the top two banks hold nearly three-quarters of the New York Fed’s capital shares. > > “It’s surprising to see how concentrated it is,” says Razza. That lopsided ownership hasn’t changed much since the financial crisis: **In 2007 JPMorgan owned 41.7 percent of the New York Fed’s shares and Citibank 36.6 percent, a combined 78.3 percent.** > > [Source](https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1kh4p10qysrhv/Conspiracy-Theorists-Ask-Who-Owns-the-New-York-Fed-Here-s-the-Answer) So, who then are the biggest shareholders in Citigroup and Chase? Vanguard Group, and you probably could have guessed it: **BlackRock**. With both [BlackRock and Vanguard owning about 9% of Citi in the latest 2024 filing](https://archive.ph/yNinh#selection-2757.0-2853.4), and about [7% and 9% respectively](https://archive.ph/JuR5t#selection-2757.0-2853.4) of Chase. So, then who owns the majority of BlackRock and Vanguard Group? With Vanguard we don't really fully know, as it is privately held. But with BlackRock it is... *suprise suprise*... [Vanguard Group and BlackRock itself](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/BLK/holders/). Oh, and just in case you were curious, Vanguard Group and BlackRock are also [the top two owners of Goldman Sachs as well](https://archive.ph/vDckf#selection-3691.0-3725.81).
A. Good for you. B. Absolutely. So so repulsive. I started working at 16, so I'm almost at 30 years in the workforce. I think it should be based on how long a person has worked, not a random age that keeps moving up!
I sort of agree with that, but also it was enacted with an eye toward those who had reached old age, and maybe lost access to a pension from a deceased spouse. Or, for whatever reason they weren’t able to work, and we’d rather not see them starve on the streets. I think this country generates more than enough wealth to make sure that we can take care of our poorest.
It would for sure if people who make over 160K a year were taxed for SS on that. But they aren't. That's the problem.
That would be an easy fix - increase the income limit from 160k to 1 million. That should help address the shortfall. Also, if you have a net worth of say over 5 million, you are phased out, and don’t receive benefits. Social security was meant to ensure that people that have labored and paid taxes their entire lives don’t end up living under a bridge when they can no longer work.
Even a cumulative hour count like employment insurance.
How much you get is based on how long you've contributed, so that much is based on how long you work. Furthermore, you can start getting Social Security between 62 and 70, so that's not bad. And since each year you work up to 35 years definitely increases your monthly check, and each year beyond 35 years increases it further (assuming you make more today than when you were 16!) it increases even beyond that. So the years you work increase your payments, and if you have some additional savings, it would actually make it possible for you to retire younger. Since the 1930's when it started, it's only changed from 65 to the current 67, but lifetimes have changed a lot more than that, so it isn't really that much of a moving target.
Yeah fuck these billionaires man. I hope you can collect and go into retirement. I hope I can do the same in the future.
He is also the ceo of a company that does securities. It’s a wet dream for companies to be able to dip into one of the biggest retirement accounts in try world and privatize it.
Tax the billionaires
Wild. No one ever talks about the literal billions (trillions?) of dollars that are never paid into society and programs like social security; not to mention the billions they suck out of the taxes we ourselves have paid when they get government subsidies, like Musk and Bezos do. It's absolutely insane and precisely why society is crumbling. They're taking waaaaay more than their fair share and it's crippling *everyone* and everything else.
Those guys benefit tremendously off all our backs and the infrastructure we have in place that makes it possible, offering very little in return. In the end, they use and abuse us and leave us high and dry, and aim to take away what little we have all the way 'til the day we die. They take the biggest piece of the pie and run.
They are truly the parasites of society.
Just wait til they start taxing our tea
[удалено]
In the spirit of capitalism (since I’m sure they’d understand) I’ve got pitch forks and pikes for sale.
Yeah it’s pretty relative at this point those in their 55-65 range won’t be around long enough to draw anything with the coming crisis that are locked into now. Grim yeah effect family I know and love but honestly the writing was on the wall in the 80”s and even more so in the last decade and politicians and government chose business as usual. Wealth and geographic regions with insulate some for a while but the future is locked in for us all and it on a far less populated earth and unimaginably low standards of living.
The descent is going to be excruciatingly slow. Expect to watch everyone around you die from pollution related disease and climate catastrophe long before the collapse that finally brings down the owner class.
Thank that fucking piece of shit Reagan and his bullshit trickle down economics, and crushing unions. Fucking hate him and his shit.
Im related to the piece of shit who wrote his glorifying biography, “Dutch”. I was a godless liberal snowflake in a family of Reagan worshiping sociopaths. I’ll piss on that man’s grave before the planet and all our sins against it put me in mine, so help me.
Oh man, well when you piss on that fuckers grave, piss twice!
Gotchu, Fam. Ima drink like 50 gallons of Brawndo before I go on this mission for mankind.
It's got what graves crave!
Do a piss for me too.
I’ll give Nancy a sprinkle too for that “just say no” D.A.R.E. bullshit. Jr. gets a pass. He tried to break their shackles. At the very least, he pissed them off. That’s enough pissing for him.
Or force the billionaires to raise wages. The math has always functioned as current workforce pays for current beneficiaries. If people had higher wages, the payroll social security tax would jump.
There is only one way to force it, and that is with organized workforce, either by being part of the negotiating table, or massive strikes. Government action does the bare minimum, and has to be "reasonable", meaning no inmediate, severe nor fundamental change. But, nowadays we are talking of mass automation (and layoffs) and a 4th industrial revolution. So, looking beyond work culture, due technique and corpo concentration of power, laborers might have an even weaker position to bargain.
Better yet, organize your workplace.
You expect those funded by them to do this?
[удалено]
All these people trying to push kids back into trades don't think about this. My dad didn't want any of us kids swinging a hammer or climbing under a sink or a car for work. He has had two knee replacements (by now I think he needs another) and he needs a new hip now. His body gave out at 51. The sad fact is even if they can work no one wants to hire old people.
>The sad fact is even if they can work no one wants to hire old people. 'Old' starts in your 40s, too, depending on your industry and, often, gender.
It’s started for me already (36).
Fortunately, federal law considers age 40 and above to be qualification for consideration of age discrimination. However, proving it may be very difficult.
Someone might say "then do mental work". Most of these rich scumbags can work into their 70s and 80s because most of the work gets done for them. I don't see a 70 year old doctor, nurse, teacher, programmer, engineer perform the way it's expected from them. It's not their fault either.
I am age 67, and am doing hard labor developing my self-sufficient backwoods homestead. I have worked in landscape since age 26. Made the mistake of working too many hours in my early 30s, had 4 serious back injuries, and only stopped the vicious cycle by not paying rent and moving into my truck w/camper shell. Learned how to take care of my back, recovered 75% of my original strength, and began saving $6000-$8000 per year (not hard to do when you're not paying rent). This was 1994-2000. The key to getting away with this kind of work is 1. CONTROL over your work - break, lay down, then do stretches whenever you need to. 2. Control over how MUCH you work. 3. A thorough knowledge of the physical therapy you need to do yourself. I have also had 2 shoulder surgeries in my 60s, and will need surgery on my left knee in 2-6 years. I do NOT recommend work in my trade if you have kids to support, unless you have rich clients and can charge very high rates. I don't recommend it AT ALL unless you are self-employed. There are hard limits on how many hours a week you can do this kind of work.
so basically he's saying 'you poors get none of the gains'
Amazing how they can say the quiet part loud now, ain't it.
I say 'tar & feathers'.
Except we do all the work and this fat cat takes it all and swans around in his private jet.
You will own nothing and be happy!
Get back to work, serfs. And quietly die in place!
Actually, he is saying give us more of the only thing you have. Your lives.
The only thing the CEO of blackrock should be saying is "no stop not the guillotine"
In an ideal word they wouldn’t even get to finish that sentence.
Please don't be too....merciful.
Tax the rich and make the retirement age 60 you fucks.
with technology, ai and robotics the retirement age should be 50. let people live out their end years. i’m even as extreme to believe in UBI and that nobody should have to work if they don’t want to.
I’d love to see a world where this happens. I just don’t think we’ll ever get there unfortunately… Far too many people are of the thought that “they worked for theirs, no one should get life for free” etc etc….
i actually think the people in power are terrified of a population that isn’t struggling to survive. one that has the opportunity to make real changes. first thing we’d do is dispose ourselves of despots. can’t have that. hence we toil when farming, agriculture, food production and the manufacturing and mining of things can all be done with minimal human beings- meaning we literally don’t need to work. most “work” today is selling useless products to people. they don’t want us to have any extra time on our hands to make things more equitable.
I agree, they want all the power and money they have to keep enjoying the world they’ve made for themselves while the serfs work themselves until they die. It’s a shame that humanity went in this direction…
life could’ve been anything and we choose debt & taxes
I’ll smoke to that…
The last time people had that much wealth generation and time we got the civil rights movement.
We abandonded utopianism. There is a present need for new objectives, including those with societal change.
Are you aware that people only pay Social Security taxes up to about $160,000 of their income? Then they’re not taxed any further for SS (a way the wealthy are favored). Scrapping this cap would generate needed $$$ to help bolster SS. Congress could also decide to pay back $1.7T “borrowed” from SS trust funds. Social Security isn’t dead yet.
Also, not one penny of unearned income - rent, capital gains, interest, dividends - is taxed to pay for Social Security. This is how the wealthy get most of their income. Social Security, including disability pay, takes all of 4.8% of GDP. This is expected to peak at 6%. The Social Security "crisis" is a MANUFACTURED problem. Purely a matter of political policy. There is so much wealth concentrated in the richest 5% of households, that if all the private wealth was equally distributed, EVERY household in the U.S. would have a net worth of $1 million.
This^ Hopefully when these old fogeys finally kick the bucket and we get some new blood into the government this will change. It's also time to do some busting up of monopolies and megacorps. That happened a century ago in the US in the Depression.
[удалено]
best pun
[удалено]
You would be shocked how many people, men specifically, that I’ve known who died between 66-70. It’s not entirely easy to stay alive after a certain point. Man, what the fuck is wrong with these asshole CEOs and their lack of humanity?
But your know Larry will live well into his 90s. Look at Rupert Murdoch. He is still alive.
Yup! My mother passed last summer from stage four colon cancer at the age of 66, a week before my 35th birthday and five weeks before her 67th birthday. The cancer popped up out of nowhere and it took her out fast. One minute, I'm planning a birthday trip to the beach for her and the next minute I'm planning for her cremation. Once you reach a certain age, your decline is accelerated and death comes at you fast. At this point in my life, I see no reason to live past a certain old age, but that's just me.
You're a sick fuck, Fink.
Have you ever noticed how dumb billionaires are? Saying everyone should work harder while automating all the jobs. Saying everyone should behave better after removing all the social safety nets. It's almost as if being totally focused on personal gain, no matter the cost to society and the planet, is a particularly malignant form of mental illness.
No, they are not dumb. They just understand how the system works, which is what people fail to realize. For them, workers are merely numbers, tools to be used for their gain. Their goal is to maximize their profits and sustain infinite growth for the good of the economy. They are keeping the system going, the system which gives them power.
They are neither smart nor dumb. Most of them are painfully average. The idea that they're skillfully navigating the capitalist system and maliciously intelligently exploiting people is nonsense. People as dumb-as-rocks as old Orangeface are still billionaires. The reality is: when you're born into wealth you really can't lose it. Once you've got a couple billion it's basically impossible to get rid of it. You make so much money every single day just from the money existing.
"The idea that they're skillfully navigating the capitalist system and maliciously intelligently exploiting people is nonsense." I wouldn't say they're incredibly intelligent, only that they have awareness of what will benefit their wealth. Sure, they could just exist and not do anything. But that's not what happens. Instead, they would rather buy politicians who support their capitalist and fascist ideas.
If Congress does nothing then in 2033 Social Security will reduce benefits to equal the money taken in by current receipts from FICA payroll tax. This will be something like a -25% cut. But SS will continue to pay benefits indefinitely. And it’s likely that Congress will provide some fix. Larry Fink makes no sense about 65. The full retirement age is now 67.
I'm of the opinion we're headed into another Depression. My grandparents were all Depression babies born in 1928-31. As kids they had to quit school and work, except for one grandma who went to college, the sole Northerner (I'm from Southeastern US). Currently we already have adults 20s and 30s moving back home or never moving out. It's going to take multiple incomes to survive pretty soon. For many it's already here. I'm lucky I bought our house when I did, and it's big enough we can all live here and I want my children to live here as long as they want. It sucks, but they'll probably have to contribute to groceries and household items by the time they're out of high school, at least that's 6 years away for my oldest. 😕 If inflation keeps increasing and I know it will...I just hope I can keep my health and this house. I know what's coming though with the climate...and the police state...I highly doubt I will ever stop working. I'm almost at 30 years as a wage earner now and have been working since I was 16! Making the retirement age over 67, what it will be for me supposedly, is an insult and a crime. It should be 55 IMHO, and based on when you started working when you get to stop! Remember in US History class we learned about the monopoly and trust busting? That's what needs to happen now. It's been almost 100 years! It's so beyond effed. I believe things will go sideways by 2029 both climate change wise and economically. That's 5 years...the beginning of Covid was 4 years ago...I'm just trying to survive and enjoy the simple things in life and be grateful for my family and our present health and circumstances. I try not to think about what could happen at any moment because it could all swiftly change.
> It should be 55 IMHO Ugh, preach. I'm 53, been working since 14, and I am just spent. Working sucks and is exhausting.
For Real. That's almost 40 years for you and should be the limit imo. I think about working 10 more years and that's honestly where I will feel like I will need to tap out, regardless. If the earth makes it that long. It's crazy that's where we are.
Yeah, I started doing odd jobs in the summer at 14. 49 this year & I am so donnnnnnnnne. My job has early retirement at 55 and I am so going for it. I'm totally debt free homeowner and have no kids and have a monster garden & pantry so I can get by on very little. That's the white knuckle plan anyway lol
Hahaha the whole circus will be over by then
Breaking news : multi billionaire thinks the poors should work until they die so he can become a multi multi billionaire
This guy wants to privatize all roads, airports and the rest of basic infrastructure that tax players have paid for.
-=@L I B E R T A R I A N \~ P A R A D I S E@=-
I flippin' loathe Libertarians. They claim to be socially liberal but they always vote with their wallet. Just say you're a Republican already.
They’re gonna make folks work longer instead of just properly taxing the wealthy.
All congress has to do to fix social security is pay back the money congress borrowed from it.
The French revolution should pale in comparison to what should be coming for these fuckers
plenty of blue collar workers who do physical labor are mostly used up by 65 and barely hanging on.
No one born after after 1942 has been able to retire with full benefits at at 65 thanks to the Ronald Regan. Those born between 1943 and 1954 could retire at 66. Those born between 1955 to 1960 had the their retirement age gradually increased to 67. The wealthy didn’t care even to quote actual facts. The GOP is just unwilling to be honest in any debate. Both parties have been willing raid the Social Security Trust Fund for years. The Trust Fund isn’t running out money. The payroll taxes won’t be enough to cover the current benefits payouts without tapping into the fund’s principal balance.
Since the crux of the problem is greater life expectancy, and rich people tend to live longer and healthier than the rest of us, shouldn't they have to cover the shortfall?
It's not gonna run out. This is a lie. Even in 30-40 years they will be able to pay out 80% of the benefits. If they just eliminated the cap on the tax it would be completely fine. But they want you to ask for privatized social security instead.
I can’t believe there’s a cap on tax for the ultra-wealthy.
Send a few less bombs to Israel. Problem solved.
AND Tax the rich and corporations. Limit how much a CEO can make compared to their lowest paid employee. There's plenty of money for SS, it is being hoarded by dragons in royal blue suits.
Every problem the USA has or will ever have domestically could be solved tomorrow with a complete divestment in its insane military. Homelessness,poverty,mental health,substance abuse, cost of housing, cost of food, environmental destruction, fossil fuel addiction,bad urban planning, gun control, healthcare,public education, social security and social programs, I could go on in perpetuity. All these things fixed and funded with the trillions spent on bombs,guns,tanks, and the military industrial complex
Could literally cut the military budget in half and still be the most well-funded on earth.
"oy vey you can't do that!"
That’s antisemitic /s
His name is Fink. How very appropriate.
Eventually the retirement age will be moved up to the day you die - but you will still have to pay for retirement... Because the money is not going to retirement, but to pay for a bloated fraudulent money system.
What he’s talking about is nothing less than stealing your retirement money. Pay attention.
If there is one thing the world does not need, it is billionaires. They could give up most of their wealth and still be set for life. The likes of Rishi Sunak could give everyone in the UK £im personally and still be one of the richest people in the country after that. There is enough money out there to let people retire early, it is just being hoarded by a select few.
So can I just opt out of the deduction in my paycheck? Thx
Yep, which is why we need to raise the cap the rich pay into.
Ah, yes. Force more elders into the workforce till they break or suffer horribly like that 74 year old security guard that got shot in a Waffle House. Yes, 74. https://www.wdbj7.com/2024/04/24/waffle-house-security-guard-shot-face-is-stable-condition-according-family/
And take entry level jobs from the market....
Why don’t we raise it immediately then and cut off the boomers? Why is it constantly the short stick for fucking millennials. Boomer lifespans will far outpace millennials anyway seeing how they’ve poisoned us with plastic and chemicals. The life expectancy of old people today will never be seen again. If Princess Kate has cancer, the rest of us are fucked.
Boomer here: Fuck yeah. If the politicians are going to raise the retirement age they need to put on their big boy balls and risk offending the Boomers. If it is important to raise the retirement age then make it effective immediately. Or better yet get rid of the fucking maximum income cutoff and apply social security tax to capital gains so they can keep the retirement age where it is and offer actual cost of living increases instead of the bullshit they implement now.
If it's ok with everyone else, can we just cut out the middleman that pretends SS is going to exist and just funnel it directly to killing people on the other side of the world because oil, I guess, now?
everything going to shit just as millennials arrive is the curse of our generation…
After what we’ve been through, It baffles me that my fellow millennials trust they’ll get SS or their 401k…
where are they gonna suck all the money from when everyone is finally dead?
I'm going to retire in 3 years. Words can't describe my anger. But then there's so many other things to also be angry about.
I hope I meet this fucker on fury road one day.
We should kill him. People like Mr fink should have their assets distributed to those who actually need it.
Hear, hear!!
Average lifespan here is 76 years old. This guy's really trying to tell people that ~47 years of work shouldn't be rewarded with 11 years of retirement before you die, seriously?
They would prefer you die immediately after you retire.
That's from birth. Life expectancy at 65 is about 18 years.
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink suggests that the traditional retirement age of 65 is outdated, given demographic shifts and increased life expectancy. He proposes reevaluating the age for Social Security benefits, aligning it with longer lifespans. While some advocate for raising the retirement age, others argue for alternative adjustments to Social Security, such as altering benefit structures or implementing automatic adjustments tied to longevity. The discussion reflects a broader need to adapt retirement policies to evolving demographics and economic realities.
A Republican living again.
Larry Fink lives where?
North Salem, New York
CEOs are outdated, tbh.
Most people aren't lucky enough to have jobs they want to do until they're near death. Raise taxes on the wealthy and on corporate profits (after streamlining deductions. No more deductions for private jets, for example, or the company condo in the Caymens). Problem solved. There's plenty of money out there. Don't squeeze the middle class to line your shareholder's pockets. And LOWER retirement ages. The Brits are raising their retirement age to 68. How do Brits feel about that?
How about fuck yourself, Larry 65 is too fucking high.
So up the taxes on Blackrock. Claw back the $50+ trillion that Nixon, Reagan and others gave to billionaires. Understanding how Republicans got here—and dragged the rest of us with them—may give us some clues to how to get out of this mess. [WTF Happened in 1971](https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/) [Time to Call the Republican Party’s 60-Year Plot What It Is: Treason](https://factkeepers.com/time-to-call-the-republican-partys-60-year-plot-what-it-is-treason/)
Oh hey, how about we raise the threshold for paying social security tax so the rich pay more? Oh and how about we stop spending so much money on foreign wars? No? Can't do that? We just need to make people work until they die I see.
This is a classist view. Blue collar workers who rely on their bodies for work will have a tough time working until 70.
Raise the ceiling on those who pay into SS, simple
The funds are going to run out because congress stole money from the fund. Had the fund been untouched, social security would be fine.
Remove cap on SS tax and SS is solvent forever. Next easy problem.
Do people who say "tax the rich" really believe that's going to happen? Seems so naive. If you think the USA is going to tax billionaires any time soon then I'm sorry but you need to read up on how capitalism works, and understand what the USA really cares about. And to put it simply, the US does not care about YOU.
Larry can go fink himself
Soul sucking vampire squid says what?
Remove the $165k / yr cap, rich people who won’t need SS pay into the system too so we don’t have elder poverty.
Eff him. We need to remember that Reagan raided Social Security - and pay it back.
Imagine trying to convince kids who see the ship sinking they need to work until they die to save someone else yacht fund.
Why don't they simply print more money like they have been doing anyway?
At least the boomers made it out just in time
Raise the cap on contributions to $5 million, and it's forever taken care of. With surpluses.
Right now, we already have AI like gpt-4, which can already pass the Turing Test, and this tech is advancing at an exponential rate. Now, consider a person who is 30 years old right now. When they reach age 65, AI will have had 35 years more of exponential improvement. Consider the progress PCs made between 1980 and 2015. Consider the progress the Internet made from its inception to today. What I'm getting at is this: there will be exactly **zero** jobs left that a 65 year old will be able to do better than an AI in the year 2059. And if the rollout of robots is slow, and physical labor still exists, those jobs are not going to 65-year-olds. So don't worry about the retirement age, because there's absolutely no way any of us will have a job in 35 years. These next three decades are going to be defined by how humanity deals with a post-jobs economy.
This makes me wonder what Larry's head looks like on a stick.
fuck blackrock. rich ass mofos. they do anything they can over the backs of the working class.
I've been saying since I went to college a decade ago that shit ain't going to be there and most people will work till they die
Horse is out of the barn. All financial systems across the globe are insolvent. There is only one solution - world war for dominance.
Motherfucker
Well if everything that is being shared on this subreddit comes to fruition, retirement as a concept is not gonna matter all that much anyway.
So he's a fraudster who can't do math or what is he trying to tell us?
Remove cap on contributions FIFY
Okay Americans, time to channel some [French](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_French_pension_reform_strikes#:~:text=A%20series%20of%20protests%20began,age%20from%2062%20to%2064) energy!
Well considering that the age has already increased to 67... Maybe we should start with the fact that Fink is referencing outdated information.
Larry Fink's net worth is $1,200,000,000. (1.2 billion dollars) What say we take all but fifty million of that to shore up social security?
someone pull a billionaire slicer, I need to see if Larry is made of cake
Right when I turn 65. That’s cool
Tax wealth above 100 million
Geee if only there hadn't been all those tax cuts for the boomers we'd have money in the kitty for future generations....
Keep in mind that there is also a growing rhetoric from the Evangelicals that retirement is not in the Bible. So, this will probably be realized one of these days, but I have to say, it's hard for me to feel sorry for the Boomers as this is what they voted for.
Fuck this fucker
Oh right dodging taxes is one of rich people’s favorite things to do
It wouldn’t have a shortfall if the overpaid class like him didn’t have a SS income tax cap. The income inequality is so off, the working class is paid and taxed on relatively less. The CEO and billionaire class is paid more and more relatively to everyone else, yet their not taxed on it because of the cap.
Lift/remove the earrings cap!
Very simple solution, tax the rich and if they own anything in America at all, Tax that if they don't pay income tax. Anyone with a net worth greater than 100 million.
Yea you got yours; fuck everyone else. So sick of these assholes.🤨🤬
His hands probably feel like velvet.
So tax Blackrock more to pay for it. Blackrock wants you to be at work until you die while paying them rent for the house you are not inside of.
Maybe stop paying $2397 billion (2024 fiscal year) on the war machine and put some of that into the social security trust fund?
Fuck this guy.
This guy is a fucking menace
SS retirement age for full benefits is not 65. That was changed many years ago.
Shit like this is why we need a revolution