Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Yes, it is. As opposed to starving or being a freeloader.



Freeloader... like those women who have been unable to work due to being full-time caretaker for a disabled spouse or child, or cared for their own parents until death, and so didn't have much or any income to save from...


Is it still good if that 60+ year old has never been a 'freeloader' and has made the best choices possible to provide for their self/family with the income that the person was able to make prior to retirement? If the 60+ year old has been a net benefit to society, should they not be provided a means of living after retirement age?


Are you discounting social security and Medicaid here? If you have to live on social security alone, you will have a meager existence, but you need not starve. If you want a better retirement, saving along the way is strongly recommended.


If that 60 year old is expecting to live until he is 90 then it is rather funny he or she thinks retirement at 60 is the thing unless that person has enough money to saved to cover half of his or hers lifetime.


Wouldn't it be a third?


If a person is 60 and expects to live until 90 then:

90-60 = 30

30 is 0.5 of 60.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: