http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/bu...l?ref=business

Quote:

---

On many issues, from universal health insurance to increased taxes on the rich, economists do not speak with a single voice. But on some issues we do. Here is an eight-plank platform designed to attract a majority of economists. It is based on discussions I have had with my colleagues — call them focus groups, if you’d like — and polls of my profession:


SUPPORT FREE TRADE

OPPOSE FARM SUBSIDIES

LEAVE OIL COMPANIES AND SPECULATORS ALONE

TAX THE USE OF ENERGY

RAISE THE RETIREMENT AGE

INVITE MORE SKILLED IMMIGRANTS

LIBERALIZE DRUG POLICY

RAISE FUNDS FOR ECONOMIC RESEARCH

---

What do you think, especially the economists out there?


Which ones do you agree with? Which ones not? And why?

Hello in:

I agree with all of 'em. Ceptin you can't change the retirement age for those 30 and older, because that's like changing the rules in the middle of the game. Raise it for the young people.

Oh, and I ain't no economist.

excon

I actually agree with almost all.

Quote:

---

USATODAY.com - Social Security gets stretched, strained by long retirements


Social Security's original retirement age of 65 was set in 1935 when life expectancy was 63. Today, life expectancy is 77 — and, for those who live to 65, life expectancy is 83. The system used to benefit financially from people who paid Social Security taxes but died before collecting any benefits

---

Knowing this, I see nothing wrong with raising the retirement age.

I would pretty much follow plans suggested to transition SS to give choice to the worker . Raising retirement age is bandaids that just kick the can down the road. I agree with Excon that the compact should be honored for most workers already in the plan . They have lived up to their end of the bargain ;the government has not.
That should give pause to anyone who thinks the government can manage enterprises like health care... (and now mortgage banking I guess )