Average Lifespan - Truth or Lie?

[DeletedUser12423]

My sincerest apologies @Spiritminer I didn't see that we were discussing only the US. At least not in the original thread title.
My oops!

Oh, we're not. It's in general, whether the the statistics are misleading or not. And you're very welcome here, Shimmer <3

 

[SoggyShorts]

I'm not sure what point you're making.

I was trying to make the point that if the Life expectancy in 1950 was 65, then if most people who were born around 1950 are dying at around 50-80 years of age that everything makes sense.
I fully understand that an individual's LE changes as they age both from getting past certain age-related illnesses, and advancements in science.

The current system in place is designed where you pay into social security and taxes all your working life, and die before you can collect retirement.

This is pretty much how things are designed I think. I don't think many(if any) countries have a SS program that is so well funded that it could handle everyone living long enough to collect for a couple decades. Again, I'm not sure about the USA, but here if you make too much in retirement from other revenue streams, our gov pension plan pays you nothing. EDIT: OAS, Not CPP, so half of the money is guaranteed, the rest is clawed back based on income So if you are a good little saver, you still pay into the program throughout your career, but you get nothing out of it even if you live forever.

 

[DeletedUser14121]

IAgain, I'm not sure about the USA, but here if you make too much in retirement from other revenue streams, our gov pension plan pays you nothing. So if you are a good little saver, you still pay into the program throughout your career, but you get nothing out of it even if you live forever.

If you are talking about the Canada Pensions Plan, everyone gets out exactly what they have earned in credits, regardless of their income. The only thing that gets taken away is Old Age Security payments, which comes out of general revenue and people do not ever contribute directly to it.

 

[DeletedUser11886]

Oh, we're not. It's in general, whether the the statistics are misleading or not.

With apologies to Shimmer if that was abrupt (and who did not owe me any apology), every message I've noticed (except for ones that expicilty stated they were about other specific countries) has been talking about U.S. average lifespan, U.S. LE@Birth, and Social Security, and the subject of the thread is _Is the average lifespan really 75+_ which is not true on average for the world, and is only true for around 1/3 of the countries on the planet. While the conversation might look general in places, there are almost no messages that in this thread that are generally true for an average human.

 

[DeletedUser5800]

It also hasn't been brought up that 75 is non-gender specific so a male should probably knock 5-9 yrs off that and a female could reasonably add 5-9.
Reminds me of that old joke:
Why do husbands always die first?...

Spoiler: Mildly Distasteful Answer

Because they want to.

 

[SoggyShorts]

If you are talking about the Canada Pensions Plan, everyone gets out exactly what they have earned in credits, regardless of their income. The only thing that gets taken away is Old Age Security payments, which comes out of general revenue and people do not ever contribute directly to it.

That is correct. CPP comes directly off your check, and is matched by your employer, and OAS is funded through income tax which comes off any paycheck (although it isn't broken down for us how much goes where like in some countries)

 

[DeletedUser14121]

That is correct. CPP comes directly off your check, and is matched by your employer, and OAS is funded through income tax which comes off any paycheck (although it isn't broken down for us how much goes where like in some countries)

My point was that saying "if you make too much in retirement from other revenue streams, our gov pension plan pays you nothing" is an error.

 

[SoggyShorts]

My point was that saying "if you make too much in retirement from other revenue streams, our gov pension plan pays you nothing" is an error.

Riiiiight, I worded that poorly as Old Age Security is the only gov pension that gets taken away my bad. I tend to lump them together as I won't be collecting either of them (dividend income means I'm not paying into CPP, so I won't get anything from that either, which is fair)
Edited the offending post.

 

[DeletedUser12423]

I don't think many(if any) countries have a SS program that is so well funded

That's true ^ ^

A good reminder to be thankful for what we have, rather than being unhappy with what we don't. Well said ^ ^

It also hasn't been brought up that 75 is non-gender specific so a male should probably knock 5-9 yrs off that and a female could reasonably add 5-9.
Reminds me of that old joke:
Why do husbands always die first?...

Also well said, haha

 

[DeletedUser14121]

Riiiiight, I worded that poorly as Old Age Security is the only gov pension that gets taken away

OAS isn't a pension. It's an income supplement for the poor, designed to keep seniors out of poverty. It replaces welfare for the elderly. The American SS program has a designated payroll amount with its own trust fund, and is a pension. OAS is not a payroll tax, it comes out of general revenues. Despite both having security in their names, they are nothing alike. No pension ever gets taken away from Canadians because their income is too high. Other than the obvious increase in taxes.

 

[SoggyShorts]

OAS isn't a pension.

pen·sion1
ˈpenSHən/
noun

• a regular payment made during a person's retirement from an investment fund to which that person or their employer has contributed during their working life.
• a regular payment made by the government to people of or above the official retirement age and to some widows and disabled people.

It seems we are each working off one of the above definitions.

Straying a little off topic though, so let's just say you're right and leave it at that.

 

[DeletedUser12423]

Straying a little off topic though, so let's just say you're right and leave it at that.

No, you folks are fine. And I'm interested in learning other views as well. I'm sure I'm not the only one that ever had their doubts about a system that's in place. Information is only as solid as the source it comes from, and once a source lies once, it is a liar forever. Life expectancy and retirement share rolls in this thread, and I'm also learning how other countries have their differences. It's all good, and thank you for sharing your opinions and information!

Game on, friends!

 

[ImajicaLuthiel]

I should learn to keep my mouth shut. My grandmother passed away in her sleep a couple of days ago.

 

[DeletedUser12423]

I should learn to keep my mouth shut. My grandmother passed away in her sleep a couple of days ago.

I'm sorry for your loss, I'm here if you need to talk to a friend? In private or on thread. Loss is harder around the holidays, I think. I'm not sure why. It just seems to be.

 

[ajqtrz]

But that life expectancy of 78 is for people born today.
For those born around 1950 when it was 65, the range is more like 50-80.

You are correct and I was wrong. The only caveat being "if" your life expectancy is 78 then. The "if" was intentional, the "your life expectancy" part did seem to say that anybody living would have the same 78 number. I was both confused and unclear and appreciate the correction.

AJ

 

[Ashrem]

and OAS is funded through income tax which comes off any paycheck

Missed this earlier. OAS is funded through general revenues, not income tax on paycheques.

While the largest share (between 40% and 50%) is funded through personal income tax. More than half comes from other government streams. There is no relationship between our earnings before retirement and OAS. Once we are the right age, OAS is ours even if we never worked a day in our life. The caveat being that if we don't have a below-average income in retirement, they claw it back.

Social security (in general, not the specific U.S. Program) is difficult for the middle class, because it's imperfect, like most things humans do. There can be little apparent difference between those who need it and those who don't, and the government is not always competent to draw the lines. Things like whether you own or rent and where in the country you live will affect your life after retirement, but have no effect on whether you have part of your OAS clawed-back.

 

[SoggyShorts]

OAS is funded through general revenues, not income tax on paycheques.
While the largest share (between 40% and 50%) is funded through personal income tax. More than half comes from other government streams.

Yep. It's only partly funded by income tax, I should have been more specific. TBH I barely see the difference between government revenue streams and their spending-- If they take in $X in various taxes and spend it on a bunch of different things, which money is paying for what is often largely irrelevant. If one revenue source brings in more or less than expected it's not like they change the OAS payouts for that year.
I should also mention that I personally don't mind paying into however much of OAS I'm paying (despite not collecting any) specifically because of the claw back for high other earners.

 

[Ashrem]

which money is paying for what is often largely irrelevant.

Personally, it's only relevant when someone says it's specifically one of those things

 

[DeletedUser4993]

Not sure about other places, but we don't have a lot of laws that specify when we can retire. What we do have is government income subsidies that kick in at various ages and/or provide bonuses and penalties for working more or less than the established date. Most laws regarding pensions just establish a minimum set of protections for how employers can handle them. Things like minimum funding commitments, guarantees, acceptable investments, and what happens if I get divorced before I retire. There is nothing in any law here that tells me anything about what age I can retire at.

I would like to make a slight correction in your wording of "subsidies". I paid into the system from the age of 16. I know I will take out more than I put in. It has always been a from Peter pay Paul system (at least Social Security). The govt does not subsidize anyone who works (well not exactly true but I will not get into that.) Besides the good old US govt is stealing from the SS coffers to pay for other than it was intended for. TX for listening.

 

[DeletedUser12423]

TX for listening.

You're welcome, what I was mostly checking with others was how others felt about how realistic the said retirement age was?
I don't want to get into any dark areas, I just think that for a guy to work 20 years in one job, 20 years in a second, and work for 15 more and die without ever retiring, isn't very fair. Not to mention the men like me don't live as long as other men in other trades, or as long as the average woman. They have longer average life expectancies. If you are breathing welding smoke for 25 years, you just cut off 10 years from your lifespan. And that's only if you're not crushed by a beam or materials, or if a machine doesn't operate correctly and it takes off your head. lol