I'm going to live forever. Social Security will support me.

haydayhayday

You promised, remember?







https://www.newsweek.com/drug-trial-reverses-biological-age-average-more-two-years-1458204

"DRUG TRIAL REVERSES BIOLOGICAL AGING AS SUBJECTS REGAIN 2 YEARS OF YOUTH ON AVERAGE"

Yehaw!

Hay

SaveComment51Like
Comments (51)
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Zalco/bring back Sophie!

Interesting times ahead.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
JodiK

No, thank you... not for all the money in the world. I would not wish to live one moment longer than I naturally would. There are natural cycles to things for a reason.

4 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg Z-7 Va(Z-7)

"No one says that they want to live to be 100.....unless they're 99"

(Line from a recent movie, don't recall which one.)

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
JodiK

VgKg, it's difficult enough for me, and I'm just reaching 60... living even two years beyond what would be normal is not an option I'd want! And I'm betting there are lots of people who might agree with me! :-)

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
vgkg Z-7 Va(Z-7)

Just recalled the movie line, I believe it was Clint Eastwood in "The Mule"

JodiK, 85 and in decent health seems fair enough.....until I reach 84 ;-)

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
FinallyHome

As long as I can continue to "do" for myself, I'm all in for an extended date.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
maifleur01

I have never wanted to live to be really old. Imagine how crowded this world will become if everyone lived to be 200+. While I may have little input in the time of my death I hope it is before every day becomes a blur with all of the previous days.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

HU-903282264

Presidents, congress, and military officers will get the drugs first. Their pensions are
outrageous and can start at age 37


Nonsense. Presidents are eligible to receive their presidential pension right away after
service, $207,800.00.

Members of Congress are federal employees, nothing more:

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/01/congressional-pensions-update

Jan 05, 2015 · Congressional Pensions Update. CRS, June 13: Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at the age of 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. Members are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or …

Military?
The rules are set forth at the link. It is possible to collect at age 37, depending on length of service, but it won't be much:

https://www.military.com/benefits/military-pay/the-military-retirement-system.html

About The Military Retirement System. The military retirement system is arguably the best retirement deal around. Unlike most retirement plans, the military offers a pension that starts the day you retire, no matter how old you are. That means you could start collecting a regular retirement pension as early as 37 years old.



Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
terrene(5b MA)

Cute video. How old is that guy?

As long as there is still a peaceful place with some Nature left on the planet, and I can walk around, dig a few garden plants, and wipe my own butt, then I'm ok with hanging around.

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
patriciae_gw(07)

You might actually consider what people in the military do before you decide they have to keep working until 67. It is the same reason police and firefighters get early retirement. There are jobs that require younger people. Geriatric soldiers is problematic. I haven't kept up with pay but I know in the past salaries sucked and retirement was pitiful for the rank and file.

7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Sleeping Giant

HU-903282264


"...but we can't afford 50 or 70 years of pension for someone who worked 20 years at desk job, or as a cook, or ordering supplies."

************************

You do understand that those "desk jobs" could include doing administrative/logistics/supply tasks, in a canvas tent in Fallujah or Kabul, with incoming mortars, RPGs, and artillery blowing up around you, don't you? Even though they aren't considered "combat" jobs?

My point being: the fact that they're willing to sign up and unselfishly (possibly) put themselves in harm's way, to protect their country, should count for a lot more than you seem to think it should.

8 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Sleeping Giant

HU-903282264

"Please stop with the tv version of the US military. The majority never see the conditions you are talking about. And we should do more to make sure that even fewer see it."

***************

The "TV version"? What does that even mean? Soldiers that don't see combat are "fake" or less deserving than others? This is the real world, not "TV." Every single person that signs up for the military does so, knowing in the back of their mind, that there's a chance they MIGHT see combat during their enlistment. That should be rewarded with a pension after 20 years, whether they saw combat or not.


ETA:

If you signed up at 17 years old, and you serve your 20 years, then you should get your pension at 37, not in your 60's. What if they die in a car accident at 40? "Sorry. Oh well. You weren't old enough yet"?

7 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
marquest(PA zone 6)

Jimmy Carter is in his 90s and still helping to build houses. I have a aunt that is in her 100s and still teaching Bible class. Drive to church every Sunday it is only 4 blocks away. LOL As long as I am a functional human I would not mind living until 200.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
maifleur01

While I think the military should be given pensions after 20 years I also think that there should be a minimum age to draw it. This does not include military disability pensions.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Zeus

Sleeping Giant. ...If you signed up at 17 years old, and you serve your 20 years, then you should get your pension at 37, not in your 60's. What if they die in a car accident at 40? "Sorry. Oh well. You weren't old enough yet"?

_______

Do you think the same way regarding SS, a system that people actually pay in to?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Cookie8

I really want to have a comfortable body if I live that long.

BTW, you may be interested in David Sinclair and Tom Bilyeu - they offer a wealth of info on anti-aging.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Linda

I have no desire to live forever. I'm 72 now and my body feels its age. Don't want to know how my body and mind would be at 100. Ditto on the crowding comment...there's already too many on Earth!

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

Unless I'm in incurable abject pain, I'd love to live forever. If it got too bad, I can always end it on my terms.

I don't see the future of mankind in nearly the dire view that others seem to always have. I think it's a mark of depression. Happy people don't want to die.

Hay

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

Jodik:

"No, thank you... not for all the money in the world. I would not wish to live one moment longer than I naturally would. There are natural cycles to things for a reason."

I can't be sure what you might mean with, "naturally would", but, without the modern advances in medicine, I'd think you'd have been long gone by this point. You don't take medicine? You don't spend time in a modern hospital? Ever?


Without modern advances, few of us, including me, would have made it out of childhood.

Once, when I had a tooth abcess and I was prescribed an antibiotic, I asked my dentist what would have happened to me in the old days before antibiotics.

"You would have died."

Hay



2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
heri _ cles

Don't worry Hay, your Living Will will not prevent your dentist from treating a tooth abscess.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

When it came time for me to decide about the timing of my taking Social Security: At what age? If you take it early you get less monthly payments. If you take it later, up to 70, you get more each month. I fretted about it a lot and finally took it late at 70.

It's not an easy question.

But, it suddenly occurred to me, after seeing this article, that taking it at 70 is a wonderful hedge, a wonderful insurance policy, against outliving my savings!

And, with the acceleration that you're always seeing with modern medical advancements, I could indeed have made a very good move by waiting til 70 to start. Social Security had me living into my mid 80's on average, but did they count on the improvements that will move up my life span? I'd love to know if the Social Security actuaries have taken this into account.

If I live forever, Social Security is going have a problem. Especially you youngin's who are going to have to take care of me.

I'm grandfathered in.

Hay

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
JodiK

If you're planning to live solely on Social Security, you probably won't live for as long as you might think. ;-)

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
maifleur01

I see the older ones that live solely on Social Security at my grocery store. Often only with cereal and bread as the only things in their carts. Almost all are rail thin. Having lived in a building where the people thought they had enough money to live gracefully for the rest of their lives it is harder than some apparently think when inflation removes that buying power.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
terrene(5b MA)

Once, when I had a tooth abcess and I was prescribed an antibiotic, I
asked my dentist what would have happened to me in the old days before
antibiotics.

"You would have died."

Probably many did, but people probably had fewer cavities and infected teeth when they ate a more natural diet, and prior to the production of refined sugar. Rate of dental caries is highly correlated with rate of consumption of sugar.

Also, they probably pulled bad teeth. Painful without anesthesia but nevertheless a pair of pliers and maybe a good dose of alcohol and voila.

I've had zillions of cavities, 6 infected teeth, 4 root canals, and have a dental implant. Way back in the 80s left upper wisdom tooth got infected and was pulled by the dentist in 5 minutes with little fanfare and healed on its own.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
maifleur01

You have to go way back if you are looking at a time before they had refined sugar. Like over 2,000 years ago. Even back then archeologists have found bodies with decayed teeth so only blaming it and other things on sugar is only a modern idea. That natural diet included many things that simply wore the teeth down or broke them. When that happened life became much shorter.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
patriciae_gw(07)

Terrence, people mostly loose their teeth to gum disease that leads to bone loss setting them up for infection in their jaw bones and potentially death when there is no root canal. The tooth that came out might be caries free but you still lost it.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
katrina_ellen

Thanks for posting Hay, he seems to be enjoying it, especially joined by two kind ladies.

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

Jodi:

"If you're planning to live solely on Social Security, you probably won't live for as long as you might think. ;-)"

If I had to, I could probably exist comfortably enough with JUST Social Security. Not my first choice, but I expect I could get by and still enjoy my life. A lot of enjoying life is an attitude.


Especially since all you youngin's have promised, via Medicare, to take care of my health needs.


And, if I'm healthy enough to enjoy life, I can most likely always find a means to supplement my income.

I want to live forever.

Keep in mind, too, that I chose to retire at 70, not 62. My personal insurance policy for living to a very old age.

https://www.investopedia.com/retirement/social-security-changes/

" Social Security recipients can get a 76% larger payment each month if they claim benefits at age 70 rather than at age 62."

...

And, I get a raise every year that matches the inflation rate:

...

"Beneficiaries Received a 2.8% Increase

For 2019, more than 67 million Social Security recipients saw a 2.8% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to their monthly benefits. The adjustment helps benefits keep pace with inflation and is based on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) as calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). If the CPI-W increases more than 0.1% year over year between the third quarter of the previous year and the third quarter of the current year, Social Security will raise benefits by the same amount."


All of which is fine and dandy until Social Security and Medicare run out of money. I'm not counting on either of them to be there for me when I turn 100, much less than when I turn 200.


Or they decide to raise even more the income taxes I have to pay on my Social Security benefits. Nice benefit, huh? Give it to me and then take it back in taxes.

Hay

2 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

Amen, brother. SS will be nice especially since we (forcibly) paid into it all these years. But I ain't countin' on it. That said, I too could live on it.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

On ancient people and tooth problems:

My first thought when it was suggested that our ancient ancestors didn't have many teeth problems: How would you even know? I'd have to imagine that most people from thousands and thousands of years ago (and the remains of which we rarely find today) never really lived long enough to show much of what we'd, today, call old age problems.

I'm not so interested, but, if you are:

https://theconversation.com/human-ancestors-had-the-same-dental-problems-as-us-even-without-fizzy-drinks-and-sweets-92546

...


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/06/tooth-decay-archaeology/4307319/


Hay

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HamiltonGardener

With a mortgage free house and a choice not to travel, I could probably live on our government pension, especially if I waited until 70 to take it.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
maifleur01

Hamilton I had to laugh at your mortgage free house knowing that several areas of this country having no house payments does not guarantee that your property tax payments will not be higher than any house payment you have ever had. I hope for your sake it will be true but even here with modest taxes twenty or more years in the future may be a different story. Of course if your income is low perhaps you can apply for assistance to cover those pesky taxes.

The idea that SS COLA matches the cost of living does not always happen. Congress and the President has to agree. Then there is the little thing of Medicare absorbing that cost of living along with that COLA is not based on what seniors actually use and purchase.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
terrene(5b MA)

I never said that ancient people had no dental problems. I theorized that they may have had FEWER dental problems than modern people eating a crappy western diet with tons of sugar, sodas, and processed foods.

They no doubt had cavities and ate a few sugary foods (dried fruits), had some gum disease, and had lots of trauma to all parts of the body including the mouth, all without the benefit of antibiotics and surgery.

I remember reading years ago about archeologists finding an Egyptian mummy of a young woman who appeared to have died of a tooth infection that spread to her brain. They thought she might have eaten a lot of dates.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
terrene(5b MA)

You have to go way back if you are looking at a time before they had refined sugar. Like over 2,000 years ago.

That's curious - what kind of refined sugar did they have 2000 years ago? How was it refined?

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

I know there are advantages to delaying SS in the U.S. until 70 for those who can. I see Canadians can benefit financially by making the same choice (after reading HG's comment).

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HamiltonGardener

Ann,

Yes, we can take it as early as 60 or as late as 70 and our payments increase and decrease accordingly.

Taking your pension before age 65

If you take the CPP retirement pension early, it is reduced by 0.6% for each month you receive it before age 65 (7.2% per year). This means that, an individual who starts receiving their CPP retirement pension at the age of 60 will receive 36% less than if they had taken it at 65.

Taking your pension after age 65

If you take your pension late, your monthly payment amount will increase by 0.7% for each month after age 65 that you delay receiving it up to age 70 (8.4% per year). This means that, an individual who starts receiving their retirement pension at the age of 70 will receive 42% more than if they had taken it at 65.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HamiltonGardener

terrene(5b MA)

That's curious - what kind of refined sugar did they have 2000 years ago? How was it refined?

Early use of sugarcane in India[edit]

Sugarcane originated in tropical Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia.[15][16] Different species likely originated in different locations with S. barberi originating in India and S. edule and S. officinarum coming from New Guinea.[16]

Originally, people chewed sugarcane raw to extract its sweetness. Indians discovered how to crystallize sugar during the Gupta dynasty, around 350 AD.[17]

There are lot of mentions in Tamil sangam literatures like Purananuru, Ainkurunuru, Perumpaanaatruppadai, Paṭṭiṉappālai and Akananuru about cultivation of sugarcane, sugarcane juice extraction using machines, and sugar extraction in the Tamil regions of South India. It is mentioned in Purananuru (392): here, the sugar cane is brought to Tamil land from an unknown place during the Sangam period. In Purananuru and Ainkurunuru, sugarcane juice extraction with use of huge machineries was compared with the sound made by elephants and the smoke produced during the process of making of sugar spread over a heap of unwinnowed paddy was like clouds over mountains.

Indian sailors, consumers of clarified butter and sugar, carried sugar by various trade routes.[18] Travelling Buddhist monks brought sugar crystallization methods to China.[19] During the reign of Harsha (r. 606–647) in North India, Indian envoys in Tang China taught sugarcane cultivation methods after Emperor Taizong of Tang (r. 626–649) made his interest in sugar known, and China soon established its first sugarcane cultivation in the seventh century.[20] Chinese documents confirm at least two missions to India, initiated in 647 AD, for obtaining technology for sugar-refining.[21] In the Indian subcontinent,[15] the Middle East and China, sugar became a staple of cooking and desserts.

Early refining methods involved grinding or pounding the cane in order to extract the juice, and then boiling down the juice or drying it in the sun to yield sugary solids that looked like gravel. The Sanskrit word for "sugar" (sharkara) also means "gravel" or "sand".[22] Similarly, the Chinese use the term "gravel sugar" (Traditional Chinese: 砂糖) for what the West knows as "table sugar".

In the year 1792, sugar rose by degrees to an enormous price in Great Britain. The East India Company was then called upon to lend their assistance to help in the lowering of the price of sugar. On 15 March 1792, his Majesty's Ministers to the British Parliament, presented a report related to the production of refined sugar in British India. Lieutenant J. Paterson, of the Bengal establishment, reported that refined sugar could be produced in India[23] with many superior advantages, and a lot more cheaply than in the West Indies.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

HG, that's very similar to our situation. You can take it between 62 and 70 with an 8% increase for each year you hold off. But, there is even an added reason to at least wait until full retirement age (around age 66) for a married couple. When a spouse dies, the survivor gets only one amount, and it is the higher of two amounts. But, say a woman takes her SS early (at age 62) and her husband delays until age 70. If he dies first and his benefit was the largest of the two, she won't get his full amount. Her benefit for the rest of her life would be 25% less than his was. If she had waited to take hers when she full retirement age, which is 66, she'd get his full benefit after he died. So, if one takes early (before age 66), they not only get a reduced amount, but are also kind of penalized with their survivor benefit too.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HamiltonGardener

That’s a bigger problem considering for many couples, they have an age difference, usually man older than woman. Many people want to retire at the same time, but what if your husband is 65 but you are only 60?


Im not as familiar with our survivor benefit calculation here, but read a number of stories where the survivor is surprised to find how little they get due to some circumstance.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

HG, in that case the younger of the two can retire but they might hold off on collecting their SS until they reach the desired age. In the meantime, they might rely on 401k/IRA savings, if they've contributed over their working years (which many workers do).

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HamiltonGardener

Or maybe after a couple of months being around a bored husband 24/7, the wife may choose to go back to work.


Just sayin’

3 Likes Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Lol, that's certainly true!

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
maifleur01

I found it interesting my husband was 5 years older than I am and I am receiving his full SS.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Maifleur, as long as you didn't take a SS benefit before your full SS age (either your own benefit or a spousal benefit), that's exactly what happens when the spouse with the highest benefit passes away (you get exactly what he got). It wouldn't matter if he had been 10 or 20 years older than you. That's just the way the law works.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
elvis

...and it's all good. Nobody gets yours, mai.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

Ann;

"I know there are advantages to delaying SS in the U.S. until 70 for those who can. I see Canadians can benefit financially by making the same choice (after reading HG's comment)."

That gets tricky.

"Those who can"?

If you expect to die before your expected time, it might very well make sense to take an early retirement. I know someone who had heart by-pass at an early age and lifelong health issues. In his case, it was better to take it early.

And, in a twisted sort of way, it's often "those who CAN'T" who would benefit from waiting til 70 to start. If you're financially struggling at 62, you're not going to be better off at 90 with:

"" Social Security recipients can get a 76% larger payment each month if they claim benefits at age 70 rather than at age 62."

The people I talk to, on average, who take benefits early, for the most part, just want to "Stop Working!"

Good luck when you're the greeter at Walmart at 90.

Hay


1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

Since women live longer than men, women get a better deal from Social Security.

Since Whites live longer than Blacks, Whites get a better deal.

If the doc informs you at age 62 that you have, at most, a month or two to live, you really got the shaft.

I know someone who recently died in his mid 20's from a known birth defect problem. It was known soon after he was born that he would have a very short life.

He paid into Social Security; Never collected.

Looking at actuary tables I learned something I wasn't aware of.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-12-10/latinos-live-longer-despite-poverty-heres-their-secret

Latinos live longer, despite poverty. Here's their secret.

Which also explains, to some extent, why we have shorter life spans than some other countries. It's because we're so rich. Throwing more money at it may just make it worse!

Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Ann

Hay, I agree it's tricky. It certainly depends on one's health, whether they are single or married - where the health of the spouse then also comes into play, and if they can afford to wait. Also, even if they can afford to wait, if they have to struggle financially while they delay SS, they might be missing good years to travel and such when they might have health issues and be unable to once they finally draw SS at the later age. So, yes it's tricky and each person or couple needs to carefully weigh the pros and cons without knowing what their future will present.

1 Like Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
HamiltonGardener

Oh come on, Hay... don't you like to gamble?

Will you live to 60? 70? 80? 125?

You can play your "death date" like you time the stock market.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
haydayhayday

HamiltonGardener:

"Oh come on, Hay... don't you like to gamble?

Will you live to 60? 70? 80? 125?

You can play your "death date" like you time the stock market."

I don't think of myself as a "gambler". You'll likely never see me in a casino or buying a scratch-off ticket...(A kid I was working alongside one day told me that was his uncle's retirement plan: just keep buying lottery tickets, expecting that sometime before he retired, he'd hit it big.)

I do backslide when the big lotteries get really big. Other than that, I'm basically buy and hold.


I do aim to be diversified and secure in my life and waiting til 70 to take Social Security maybe has turned out to be a wonderful hedge, like I said, just in case I get to live a long, healthy life.

Hay

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
sableincal

"I want to live forever."

It sounds wonderful!

On the other hand, try reading All Men Are Mortal, by the great French writer Simone de Beauvoir. In this story her protagonist is a man who actually is immortal. And this fact ruins his "life". When people discover his secret they desert him. No one wants anything to do with him, as he is a constant reminder of the ultimate fate of everyone else. In the end his main wish is to die, the one thing he cannot do.

Save    
Browse Gardening and Landscaping Stories on Houzz See all Stories