Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: AIG chief says retirement age will go to 80 after the euro crisis.

Posted 2 years ago on June 3, 2012, 9:13 p.m. EST by foreeverLeft (-264)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

17 Comments

17 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

AIG....Ground Zero for the CDS derivatives explosion that put the global economy in the shitter.... now they are making predictions for Europe? LOL!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22485) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Wonder if his fingertips are bloody from biting them wondering if he will be getting a Madoff Makeover.

[+] -4 points by RealityTime (-224) 2 years ago

Before you embarrass yourself further, he didn't even work at AIG until 2009. I'm not sure whom the "they" is you're referring to.

Sorry, don't let that get in the way of the propaganda.

[-] 4 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Did I call him out? No, I stated a fact about the company. Don't embarrass yourself with assumptions.

'They' is the virtual legal entity known as AIG.

[-] -2 points by RealityTime (-224) 2 years ago

Who is the "they" making predictions about Europe? I know of a person that did, a person that didn't even work at AIG when it had problems, not a "they" that did.

You're just a propagandist making slurs without knowing even the basics.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

No, what I stated was factual. AIG was Ground Zero for the CDS derivatives implosion.... hence they were taken over by the government, well at least 85% of their stock.

Isn't it interesting that companies are allowed to have zero accountability? It's always an employees fault... never the company. The company gets immunity from wrong doing and the consequences of doing such.... to the point that AIG is the major recipient of corporate welfare to keep it from going under....

But go ahead, continue being the corporate apologist. Keep your head buried in the sand. None of this really happened.

[-] 0 points by RealityTime (-224) 2 years ago

I'm not apologizing for AIG, I'm just pointing out that the guy that made the comment about Europe's failing welfare states didn't even work at AIG during the problem period and that he's a person, not a "they".

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

How convenient for him. I bet to be CEO of that company, he worked in the industry long enough to have his hands dirty in derivatives somewhere along the lines. Might be interesting to find out.... don't you think? AIG wasn't the only CDS underwriter in town.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6006) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Every time someone talks about how people died in their early sixties when Social Security was establish they are laying the ground work to raise it to at least 74, this has been a long time coming, don’t be surprised.

[-] -2 points by RealityTime (-224) 2 years ago

Life expectancy for a 30-year old is +10 years since social security started vs +2 for the retirement age. That's part of why the ponzi scheme is going to unravel without major reforms. You like facts, right?

[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

The fact is, we could sustain social security at current benefit levels, without much problem. Americans, by far, tend to pay the lowest taxes with respect to our retirement system, and our social security system is actually in pretty good shape (considering the demographics). Most of the projections you hear are 75 year projections, and such long range predictions are tenuous (at best). We face projected shortfalls in social security by around 2033 if nothing is done:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505146_162-57419261/social-security-trust-fund-in-the-red-by-2033/

Unfortunately, the FICA tax is regressive as it stands now (income above $110,000 is exempt from the tax). If we simply made it a "flat tax" (no income ceiling) .... problem solved.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/research_desk_responds_could_r.html

Eliminating the income ceiling actually creates a surplus, so we wouldn't necessarily need to eliminate it completely. In the alternative:

Social Security Administration actuaries project that immediately increasing the payroll tax by 1.7 percentage points (for employers and employees combined) would keep the system in balance for 75 years (Board of Trustees 2008).

http://www.urban.org/retirement_policy/ssraisepayrolltax.cfm

[-] -2 points by RealityTime (-224) 2 years ago

No shit Sherlock, more is always the answer to a ponzi scheme approaching the wall. And if that amount of more didn't do it, you'd just come up with the more amount that did.

Taxes stop because BENEFITS stop. It isn't regressive, it's benefits based. No doubt, your "more" approach has those paying more getting less or NOTHING in benefits for their more.

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Does social security earn beneficiaries a positive or negative return?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6006) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Querry, Do you believe all insurance is a Ponzi scheme? How about cutting taxes, then borrowing the money and paying interest forever now that’s a scheme. Automatic tax increased on incomes over $250,000 whenever there’s a shortfall, NO MORE INTEREST!!

[+] -4 points by AudacityOfDrones (-34) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

I here plants like you make 12 large a month just to flood forums like this with pro Dem or pro GOP BS, either of which of course is pro status quo.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

There wont be a retirement age after this bullshit is done with.