|
You're Too Good To Be Through At 62
Barring extreme disability when you reach threescore years and
two, full retirement from gainful occupation makes no more sense than watching
the grass grow or investing in the lottery.
"Gainful occupation," for purposes of this opusette, means something to do that
is rewarding to you or someone else, as opposed to being a fungus on society.
Since the earliest humanoids strapped on fig leaves, adult humanoids have
fantasized about an existence wherein there is no obligation to do anything more
than eat, sleep, attend to bodily functions and pursue hedonistic pastimes.
As the stuff of daydreams, it's hard to beat, especially for those who are
burdened by the yoke of labor that is necessary for survival and/or fulfilling
inescapable commitments.
Let's agree, though, that it's only "work" if you'd rather be doing something
else, a truism that explains the behavior of those who seem unwilling or unable
to "stop and smell the flowers."
Obtaining relief from "having to do" is a legitimate goal for just about any but
the most dedicated of masochists, but having nothing to do is a fate worse than
debt or overwork.
In "Man's Search For Meaning," Viktor Frankl identified purposelessness as one
of mankind's most cruel scourges, a dreaded opposite of what the French describe
as a "raison d'etre," a worthwhile reason to exist.
There is irrefutable evidence that those who retire - that is to say, withdraw -
from meaningful activity hit the obits much sooner than those who find a
"raison" in the sun, even as the twilight of life approaches.
All that is prefatory to discussing the modern American fairy story of Social
Security.
In 1935, when the system was instituted, it was a statistical slam-dunk for
Uncle Sam, since the payoff date was age 65, only the individual worker got to
collect benefits, and average life expectancy was 63 years.
It was a good deal for some workers. The first one to retire, one day after SS's
enactment, enjoyed a 340% return on his investment, having paid in but a nickel
and receiving a check for 17 cents. (Would I kid you? Check out Ernest Ackerman
in Google.)
On the other handout, one Ida May Fuller (also Googlable), retired in 1940,
after paying in a smidge over 22 bucks during three years of employment
beforehand. Before kicking off at age 100, she pocketed $22,888, almost exactly
1,000 times more than she had kicked in.
Still, the Social Security fund was then sound and solvent, although already
under attack by America's elected reprehensibles.
In 1939, Congress extended benefits to surviving spouses and children, then in
1956 added disability payments, meanwhile raiding the fund and replacing solid
equity with IOUs.
Effective in 1961, participants were given the option of retiring at 62, with
reduced monthly payments, but the probability of collecting more benefits over
an ever-expanding life expectancy
Future recipients now include Baby Boomers, who will swell the ranks of
eligibles from today's 40 million to 71 million by 2030, with far fewer workers
paying into the fund.
To make a long story longer and validate its realistic label as a Grim Fairy
Tale, the present system will be unable to meet its future promises, unless
taxes are raised and/or benefits reduced and/or the age of eligibility
postponed.
(Please read that last paragraph again, because it is the gutbucket of this
message!)
Don't count on either incumbent or wannabe office holders to touch any of those
three remedies with a pole of any length, much less the customary ten feet.
These are political third rails with a politically destructive charge that would
make the electric chair seem like a Whoopee Cushion.
Therefore, dear hearts - especially if you're in the vicinity of mid-life or
newly qualified for AARP membership, DO NOT focus your financial sights or
dreamy sighs on a life of subsidized leisure when you arrive at 62.
Unless you can "make marry" like John Kerry or rake in a haul in Power Ball,
start stashing funds away right now to guarantee some glitter in those Golden
Years to come.
The bad news is that Uncle Sam is totally incapable of making that happen, so
figure on working on, if need be, beyond the statutory emancipation age of 62.
The good news is that if you retire TO a productive existence, rather than from
one, you'll live much more happily ever after.
Well, maybe not "ever" after, but you get the idea.
|