^^^^And then someone has to go and bring us all back to the original question. 
Very interesting article today on life expectancy and lifetime gov’t benefits received.
Some of is a little puzzling and disturbing:
This means wealthier people will be collecting much more than they have in the past:
If this trend continues over the next 30 years it will put even more stress on the SS system.
[The Rich Are Living Longer and Taking More From Taxpayers](The Rich Are Living Longer and Taking More From Taxpayers - Bloomberg)
^Our political system has been withdrawing social safety nets and hastening the effects of both globalization (old news) and robotization (new news). I think we can’t do both – that is, if we allow more globalization and robotization, we need to provide better health care, income support, and education for folks who are losing their jobs. We need to increase funding of scientific research as that is what has led to a lot of the good jobs in our country (either through defense spending, NIH, NSF, etc.) I especially think we need to improve the education (and especially science education) for the kids of folks who used to have high-paying jobs that won’t exist. Our political system seems to be pushing to further defund the safety nets and investments in the future.
The misalignment of these two policies is harming the health of the poorer part of our population. The effects are what the article shows.
Over time, to sustain SS, we will need to reduce the amounts that upper income folks are getting from SS.
It is a very complicated world and I don’t see anyone offering real solutions or even proposals that intellectually address the difficult reality we face. ShawSon, with his feet firmly planted in Silicon Valley, believes that in 20 years, we will have heavy-duty redistribution of income and wealth, but that we will go down this path for another 10-15 years before attempting to address the problem.
Yes, the folks in public health have been pointing out how US health and mortality is aligned with income for as long as I can remember. The lowest socio-economic folks have the highest chronic disease burden.
Here is Ontario’s response: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39675442. Not sure that is the right approach. I’ve been thinking about something more akin to the WPA. Let’s create a basic income but ask people to help fix our crumbling infrastructure. Not sure if that is a good idea or feasible, but I’d rather do that then have people just hang out at home with their basic income (seems like a recipe for drug addiction).
There are something like 95 million people who are non-participants in the work force.There’s about 55 million people or so who collect SS, SSI/SSDI, or both, who are not children.
This leaves approximately 40 million people who would have to be covered by a basic income, assuming people collecting from SS don’t also work, which is not a number I could easily find.
If you factor in low paid workers who would still get something, you are probably talking about a program similar in size and scope to the current SS system. To fund this would require a tax increase similar in size to what employers and employees pay in FICA taxes right now.
It also depends on how high a “basic income” is. Right now the average SS check is around $1300/month and disability is around $1000/month. Is that enough to survive on?
So, is it feasible? Sure, if everyone who is working ponies up another 15% of their pay. Seems like it would be a serious disincentive to work. I’m not sure a WPA-like system is feasible, WPA employment peaked at around 3.5 million workers out of population of 127 million, or around 3%. That would be around 10 million people today.
Not sure if we have the political will to do this. We can’t even agree on how to fix SS, which only needs some tweaking.
When people talk about how much they need to retire, if they are married are they generally thinking of how much “we” need to retire, or how much “I” need to retire (and wife would need a similar amount)? I’m thinking its “we,” but I’m not really sure.
^ it’s “we” for us 
I think it is far more expensive to be a single rather than a couple. That said, as a single. My housing cost would be cut in half, for example.
Married because I hope to stay that way. We’re in this together.
I’ve told my husband that if he ever wants to divorce me, it’s fine, no problem.
Though I would kill him. But it’s his choice, divorce or death.
He thinks I’m kidding. 8-X
ESPlanner has an input for “two can live as cheaply as” that accounts for that. I use 1.7. Some things are not 2x (housing, for example, or a shared hotel room), but a lot is. Airlines still charge for 2 tickets, doctors don’t give a family discount, etc. I think 1.7 is probably reasonable.
@busdriver11 Don’t do it. If you do you won’t need retirement fund. You will have free housing and foods.
So morbidly funny, coolweather!
Though it’s probably better than what I had growing up. At least there would probably be heat.
@rosered55…killjoy. 
That article stresses me out. I don’t even want to think about that!
It depressed me, too!
I already had a stomach ache before I read it, now it’s worse. Ah, not your fault, I probably ate too much :O)
That is just peachy - the 401(k) forced Roth-like conversion! Right at the time when folks like Mr. are close to retirement and are in the high tax bracket… Just lovely. So we have to shell out 30% of what we have not been taxed on when our rate was in low teens? Of course, may supporters of the prez have no 401(k)s or any retirement savings, so to them, it is “tax the rich.”
Hopefully it’s just a random idea, and will not come to pass. I have no problem with them changing things for future contributions…at least you know what you’re getting into. But changing things that people have already acted accordingly on…seems sneaky and dishonest.
It’s always that"other people’s money" that seems so enticing. Until you run out of it.