Deborah Harrell wrote:
>
> --- Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > (If nothing else, recall that the reason the
> > retirement age for Social
> > Security was set at 65 was because at the time
> > relatively few people would
> > live long enough to draw any benefits . . . )
>
> I don't recall when Social Security was started...
> The 'average American' life expectancy in 1950 was
> ~68, higher for women and lower for blacks; in 2000,
> it's almost 77, similar varience WRT gender and race.
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/pdf/nvsr51_03tb12.pdf
> (the table is at the 'top' of the file)
It was started, and 65 set as the retirement age, in the 1930s. My
father-in-law's analysis of it is that, at that time, at 65 you had one
foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.
Looks like 3 out of Sammy's 4 grandparents will make it to 70 (the
grandmothers each have less than a year to go, the grandfather who's
still alive made it almost 2 years ago), and all are drawing Social
Security. None of them *needs* that income, either.
Julia
stop me before I start going on about means testing
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
