If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.
Duplicate of another approved link: 7444306


(The Atlantic)   Head of Goldman Sachs, 2011 compensation of $5.45M, says that we need to raise the retirement age   (theatlantic.com) divider line 30
    More: Cool, executive compensation, CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, Cost of Living Allowance  
•       •       •

449 clicks; Favorite

30 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-28 09:00:00 AM
$5.45M? That's it??

Huh.
 
2012-11-28 09:05:10 AM
Well, $5.45M was his income as stated in the 2011 SEC filing.
He has GS shares worth about $500M.
 
2012-11-28 09:14:47 AM
On one hand I agree. On the other hand it would be nice to see more people my age and younger gainfully employed. Sadly, I don't think we can have both unless we're in a booming economy.
 
2012-11-28 09:22:41 AM
Suck me, you rich asshole. For people like you, who sit in a comfy, climate controlled office, who are shuttled around between office and your homes by chauffers and helicopters, who make more money in a day than many hard-working people make in a year, yeah, working a few more isn't a bad idea. You'll be clawing and scratching for more money on your very last day on earth, I have no doubt.

But people wh actually work for a living sometimes get physically broken down by the time they are in their early 60s. What about gargage men and iron workers and other laborers, or even nurses or truck drivers?

I hope someone does to you what someone did to Richard Fuld. It will be just as richly deserved.
 
2012-11-28 09:24:09 AM
I'm not sure why subby seems to be suggesting that his wealth has something to do with his position on the retirement age. I mean, he can still retire this year and be fine regardless of when the federal retirement age is.
 
2012-11-28 09:24:41 AM
the good news is he'll send your family a nice card if you die at your desk.
 
2012-11-28 09:29:17 AM

beantowndog: the good news is he'll have his secretary send your family a nice card if you die at your desk.


FTFY
 
2012-11-28 09:32:33 AM
With unemployment at a decades-long high, I see no compelling reason to extend retirement. Get the boomers off the line and let the young blood do some work.
 
2012-11-28 09:32:48 AM

Arkanaut: I'm not sure why subby seems to be suggesting that his wealth has something to do with his position on the retirement age. I mean, he can still retire this year and be fine regardless of when the federal retirement age is.


Did you read the article?
 
2012-11-28 09:34:13 AM
How about if we just let FICA kick back in once your income goes over $1 million a year, regardless of "deductions"? That would work, and we wouldn't have to raise the retirement age.

Asshole.
 
2012-11-28 09:34:16 AM
Except that there aren't JOBS for 65+ year-olds. The majority of Americans who turn 62 this year will apply for Social Security when they turn 62. (You can do that, you just get strongly diminished benefits for life). They do this because *no one hires* 60-somethings, they fire them when they can get away with it, and they need some income at 62.

If you lose a job at 59, you have a 50/50 chance of ever working another full-time day again. It falls off fast after that.

AND, as much as Blankfein will biatch about the retirement age, if a traded company started to hire a bunch of 60-somethings, what's the first thing that Goldman's 22-year-old cocaine-addict douchebag analysts would put in the analysis report? "They need to fire all these old MFs. Short them until they do."
 
2012-11-28 09:58:33 AM

Dinki: beantowndog: the good news is he'll have his secretary send your family a nice card when you die at your desk.

FTFY


FTFY
 
kab
2012-11-28 09:58:34 AM
But in general, entitlements have to be slowed down and contained, says the man who knows a hell of a lot about entitlements, including ones he'll be getting after retirement.
 
2012-11-28 09:58:58 AM

jjwars1: On one hand I agree. On the other hand it would be nice to see more people my age and younger gainfully employed. Sadly, I don't think we can have both unless we're in a booming economy.


20 hour work week would solve voth problems.
 
2012-11-28 10:20:32 AM
Social Security wasn't devised to be a system that supported you for a 30-year retirement after a 25-year career.

So, most people don't start working until 40, retire at 65 and live to be 95? Man, I have been doing it all wrong!!

I actually agree that we need to raise the retirement age to match population trends, but this guy is a tool and a dishonest one at that. It's shocking, I know.
 
2012-11-28 10:43:34 AM

mod3072: Social Security wasn't devised to be a system that supported you for a 30-year retirement after a 25-year career.

So, most people don't start working until 40, retire at 65 and live to be 95? Man, I have been doing it all wrong!!


It's the farking head of Goldman Sachs, I think we can all trust his numbers.
 
2012-11-28 10:51:23 AM
There's a strong correlation to dying soon after you retire.

We should lower retirement age to get people to die sooner, reducing healthcare costs.

/not serious.
 
2012-11-28 11:24:11 AM
Raising the retirement age is a HUGE cut to SS benefits for the working class. Life expectancy at 65 falls dramatically with lower income i.e. working class folk don't live nearly as long as the affluent. Raising the retirement age is just breathtakingly immoral.
 
2012-11-28 11:41:50 AM
He is not incorrect. SS and every other pension program in existence was designed with a life expectancy of 65-70. The longer the payout, the harder it is to fully fund it.

Best fixes?
1) Removal of the income cap on SS and Medicare.
2) More aggressive means testing for recipients.
3) A slow rise in the eligibility age from the current 65-68 to 72 and raise the early eligibility age to 65.

Each works on a separate part of the problem.
 
2012-11-28 11:54:29 AM

Another Government Employee:
1) Removal of the income cap on SS and Medicare.


Okay. Doesn't have to be entirely removed, but the top line can be bumped a few hundred grand, and maybe some phased-down rates after that. 7%+ on everything, and you start getting into extreme clevernesses to avoid it (Mitt Romney's Magical Exploding IRA, for instance).

2) More aggressive means testing for recipients.

The problem with that being that Social Security becomes what "those people" get. Easier to kill it bit by bit as you make it the means-testing more and more aggressive.

3) A slow rise in the eligibility age from the current 65-68 to 72 and raise the early eligibility age to 65.

Isn't massively different than just saying 'lets cut benefit payout rates and leave cutoffs where they are'. You can currently delay SS benefits to 70 (and get bigger payouts, if you live long enough to take advantage). But, since most people currently have to take diminished payouts at 62 already, you would expect that the vast majority would take 'early' payouts at 65. Remember, most people are out of work by 63-64, and they already have Social Security incentives to work to 70.
 
2012-11-28 11:58:33 AM
This guy pisses me off. I've been paying into SS since I was 14 when I got my first job. There are only two years since then that I haven't worked, which was during college. I will have worked for 50 years by the time I hit retirement age and this assclown thinks I shouldn't get SS? Tell me I shouldn't get money from a system I've paid into for that long.
 
2012-11-28 12:17:38 PM

Lawnchair: Another Government Employee:


3) A slow rise in the eligibility age from the current 65-68 to 72 and raise the early eligibility age to 65.

Isn't massively different than just saying 'lets cut benefit payout rates and leave cutoffs where they are'. You can currently delay SS benefits to 70 (and get bigger payouts, if you live long enough to take advantage). But, since most people currently have to take diminished payouts at 62 already, you would expect that the vast majority would take 'early' payouts at 65. Remember, most people are out of work by 63-64, and they already have Social Security incentives to work to 70.


Not really. If you draw your benefits, the amount you can earn before offseting is about $15,000 until you reach age 70. It is after that the offsetting goes away and you can earn as much as you like.

Of course, there are folks that just prefer to work past 65 if they are able and they defer the SS benefit. This is really whats should be encouraged.

Of course there are some Gen Y and millenials that would prefer they just be given the needle instead.
 
2012-11-28 12:21:30 PM
We DO need to raise the retirement age. Just because some asshat from Goldman Sachs agrees doesn't make it any less true.
 
2012-11-28 12:29:11 PM

gshepnyc: Suck me, you rich asshole. For people like you, who sit in a comfy, climate controlled office, who are shuttled around between office and your homes by chauffers and helicopters, who make more money in a day than many hard-working people make in a year, yeah, working a few more isn't a bad idea. You'll be clawing and scratching for more money on your very last day on earth, I have no doubt.

But people wh actually work for a living sometimes get physically broken down by the time they are in their early 60s. What about gargage men and iron workers and other laborers, or even nurses or truck drivers?

I hope someone does to you what someone did to Richard Fuld. It will be just as richly deserved.


THIS

/white collar now but come from very blue collar
//sad how little people realize the realities of life
 
2012-11-28 12:32:19 PM

Koalacaust: We DO need to raise the retirement age. Just because some asshat from Goldman Sachs agrees doesn't make it any less true.


It does when he lends an air of authority to an issue that is not as black and white as people want to pretend it is. We all assume that life expectancy is much higher now than it was when SS was first established. True, if you are affluent, life expectancy has increased by 6 1/2 years on average. BUT if you are working class or poor, it's only increased by 1 1/2 years. And those 18 months, depending on what you've been doing for work, are hard ones. Why should someone who sits on his ass all day tell a factory worker or garbage man or farm laborer that he and they all ought to work an extra 3 or 4 years?
 
2012-11-28 12:33:44 PM

Another Government Employee: He is not incorrect. SS and every other pension program in existence was designed with a life expectancy of 65-70.


No. Life expectancy from birth is not the correct metric; life expectancy from age 65 is. And that number has increased modestly, only 5 years since SS inception.

Best fixes?
1) Removal of the income cap on SS and Medicare.
2) More aggressive means testing for recipients.
3) A slow rise in the eligibility age from the current 65-68 to 72 and raise the early eligibility age to 65.

Each works on a separate part of the problem.


Medicare is, as I recall, uncapped already. FICA is capped at about $110K. Given the comparatively miserly maximum benefits, I don't think SS should be totally uncapped but definitely moved up to, say, 200 grand and index that number to wage increases.

Means testing won't save much money for SS - the rich aren't numerous enough and the maximumSS benefit is too small. Means testing would make SS more easy to demagogue against as a dreaded "welfare program." And raising the retirement age is a terrible, terrible idea because those who need it most, the working poor, will live their final years in dire poverty.
 
2012-11-28 12:46:51 PM

Arkanaut: I'm not sure why subby seems to be suggesting that his wealth has something to do with his position on the retirement age. I mean, he can still retire this year and be fine regardless of when the federal retirement age is.


Unless SS and Medi-care are cut, there may not be enough money to bailout the bankers again in a few years.

He might loose it all.

/funny how it turns out the financial crisis was not caused by the housing bubble, SS and Medi-care.
 
2012-11-28 01:28:45 PM
Agreed but with the following stipulation:
Tax capital gains above a certain point as normal income
Take care of tax loopholes. No more dancing horse deductions for the rich.
Return tax rates on the rich to 70's or 50's levels
Expand SS taxes to all levels of income
Require that all stock options to executives be tied to 5 year or longer holdings / life of the company (no pump and dump)
Ban zero interest loans from companies to executives.
Ban forgiving loans from companies to executives.
 
2012-11-28 01:50:24 PM

Another Government Employee: He is not incorrect. SS and every other pension program in existence was designed with a life expectancy of 65-70. The longer the payout, the harder it is to fully fund it.

Best fixes?
1) Removal of the income cap on SS and Medicare.
2) More aggressive means testing for recipients.
3) A slow rise in the eligibility age from the current 65-68 to 72 and raise the early eligibility age to 65.

Each works on a separate part of the problem.


I agree with all of the above. How no 1 has not been dealt with a long time ago is beyond my comprehension.
 
2012-11-28 02:10:33 PM
Nice use of a non sequitur, Subs.
 
Displayed 30 of 30 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report