Originally Posted by
crewdawg
I don't think we have to give up something we already have, but more of a losing out on potential gains. Either one is still a loss.
I can see the logic in the fact 67 would be more expensive, both for LTD and just the general having employees at the top of our various accruals around for 2 more years (5 weeks vacation, 270 hours sick leave, ect.)
when 65 happened our LTD was worse than it is now. If 5 years didn’t destroy our LTD/ negotiating ability for improved LTD and other items, I find it hard to believe 2 more years will. If anything I would think our DC % would be an easier target. Don’t need as high of a % if you can stay longer.
70+ is a different story, but I don’t think 67 will break the bank. I hope we don’t have to find out.
Originally Posted by
crewdawg
Ya their argument about not being able to stay to full retirment age is a bit much. Like the $1k/month loss for drawing it at 65 is going to put them in the poor house 🙄. Most of us will he lucky to see SS in anywhere close to its current for, and if we do, it will likely be because we paid increased taxes.
never got it either, but there are plenty of people who are just looking for anything to justify their cause. And complaining to the generation who will never see ANY SS really won’t get them the sympathy they think it will.