I admittedly don't know the US system. The Canadian system was first starting to be implemented in the 1920's. The system remains largely unchanged with the exception of rate changes. The rate changes are reflective of the funded status. If we acknowledge the following data noted below its clear the rate will only need to increase if we want to maintain the funded status since people will live longer and claim benefits that would have never been claimed in the 1920s.

I would propose that the eligible age for old age security increases as life expectancy increases. This reduces tax burden but still provides old age security. I would have to think the USA is facing similar issues with increased life expectancy and that additional cost to its funded status / system.


Data:
The chance of a newborn reaching age 65 has significantly increased over time, going from 57% in 1925 to 87% in 2010 for males, and from 60% to 91% for females over the same period. By 2075, it is projected that 93% of male newborns and 95% of female newborns will reach age 65.

Over the recent 30 years from 1979 to 2009, increases in life expectancy in Canada have been largely due to the reduction of mortality rates after age 65, as a result of a decrease of deaths caused by diseases of the heart. Over the same period, malignant neoplasms surpassed diseases of the heart to become the most important cause of death among those aged 65 and older.

Over the last decade in Canada, life expectancy at age 65 increased by two years, a rate of growth of about twice of what has been observed over each of the previous decades since 1929. It is further projected to increase from 21 to 24 years for men and from 23 to 26 years for women by 2075. This means that Canadians are expected to live beyond age 90 on average in the future.

Life expectancies at birth of Canadians are projected to increase from 86 to 90 for men and from 89 to 93 for women over the period of 2013 to 2075.

Currently, five out of ten Canadians aged 20 are expected to reach age 90, while only one out of ten is expected to live to 100.

A life expectancy at birth of 100 years would be possible if no one died until one’s late nineties, and if the same mortality rates at advanced ages as those experienced in 2009 applied.

If mortality rates continue to decrease at the same rate as experienced over the last 15 years, a life expectancy at birth of 100 could be reached in 2094 for men and in 2121 for women. In addition, male life expectancy could exceed that of females from 2026 onward.

It is expected that Canada will continue to have one of the highest life expectancies of the world along with Japan, France, Switzerland, Italy and Australia.

https://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca/Eng/oca-bac/as-ea/Pages/mpsspc.aspx


This post was edited by SBD on Aug 11 2020 09:37am

millenials in droves are buying cheap houses in the 30-50k range that are early 1900s run down homes, and fixing them up. i hope this continues, and i hope large apartment complexes stop being built in heaps.

boy if i was told at age 16 that housing, healthcare, and even college would be added to the list of "human rights" during my young adult life i'd have called you a liar. i think honestly a few months FLAT broke would help some of these kids, i see a lot of advocacy by people i'd bet have rent paid for by mommy and daddy.

You're just uncritically parroting partisan talking points lol

Republicans aren't interested in reforming those systems. They have not ever given a proposal that would do anything except make the systems worse for the middle and lower classes. We aren't on our way to Venezuela by implementing the things that virtually every other industrialized nation has.

when people suggest single payer will make us venezuala they sound like fucking idiots. like, you, now. could be expensive, could have issues, but cause collapse and be untenable?

put the kool aid down and add some hemlock before your next sip. youre a parrot. you have the balls to say dems are too hyperbolic but u act like the world will end if we have a 10% tax increase implemented over a few years.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Aug 11 2020 09:40am

yeah residential real estate intended for homeowners (and not large corporations buying buildings and leasing them out) is and will continue to see growth. as cities remain stagnant due to covid-19 (and even with a vaccine it will take years, if ever, to get back aspects of city life that make it so enticing) it really is a better long-term option to pay for a place and fix it up.

then again a lot of these millenials will buy several houses, use their own funds to fix them up, and then rent them to others. and the usual suspects here will call them slumlord landlords

and this is isn't a trend that is unique to millenials. the average age millenial is probably close to 30 now, thats give-or-take the time people have started families and decided to shift out of the city life and into a house they own.

Who's talking point is that lol?

That's just me giving a macro econ explanation of what's happening and what might happen.

Dude our labor force participation rate is dropping like a rock. Are wages are stagnant. Our currency value is being killed. You have half of the country that thinks we deserve free housing, free healthcare, free fill in the blank which will only further rape productivity because a higher % of our gdp would have to go towards servicing the debt. We've maintained our econ prowess because we develop so much innovation. Higher taxes that need to fund your wish lists kills that. Higher taxes means a greater % of your revenue going to taxes squeezing margins, ultimately squeezing investment. If only some of you were literate on the mechanics of macro econ we'd be infinitely better off. But here i'm talking to someone that thinks government is the reason innovation happens and only if more companies were owned by gov't then it would happen at a similar rate .



I'm talking a wholesome look at all of the socialized programs & current demands not just healthcare, where did i single out single payer or is that what you're latching on to hop on my dick? I parrot things from my formal education on the mechanics of money much better than parroting CNN/FOX talking points.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Aug 11 2020 10:13am

While reform is better than abolition, abolition is better than status quo.

We cannot afford the public pension schemes we have today. It is a regressive, forced transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.

Like I said, virtually every other industrialized country has these things.

That's all I need to show to prove you wrong.

You're doing that thing again, like you do with statistics and science. You memorized a bunch of ideas but don't know enough about how to critically apply them so you miss big and obvious things.

Every other industrialized country hasn't been the epicenter of innovation for decades. There's a reason why American companies have developed as global leaders in a slew of industries and relatively lower taxes is a strong component of that.

Funny, your politicians must've missed that memo. Better send them the newsletter.