[extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment

[Bret Kulakovich]

I'll see your 'longevity or social security/pension' and raise you  
'longevity only if you contribute to the GNP and society'.

This is right up there with 2 years military service buys you voting  
franchise and full US citizenship, 4 years for foreign born.

]=)



]3ret


On Aug 22, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Mike Lorrey wrote:

>
>
> --- Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On Aug 21, 2005, at 4:15 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>>>
>>>> The future financial problems of social security, medicare and
>>>> medicaid, are all because people are living longer, increasing the
>>>> years they receive benefits by 2-3 times.
>>>> I expect that true longevity treatment technology will be held in
>>>> limbo
>>>> by the FDA and other governments health ministries until after the
>>>> baby boom is mostly dead and buried.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> How about free longevity treatment for the old, but only
>>> for the people who haven't gone into retirement yet?
>>> You get to choose between longevity and retirement...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Why this distinction?  Many "retired" people are only retired from
>> needing a paycheck.  They are active on their own projects.  Even if
>> they are not so active many are not active because their bodies don't
>> easily support them being more active.  Assuming longevity includes
>> some degree of rejuvenation, why should it be denied to those whir
>> physically most need it?
>>
>
> The distinction is because the retirement system is not set up to deal
> with people living unusually long into retirement. It is broken right
> now because too many people are living longer than the system intended
> or expected. It is not structured to vary the retirement age with
> average life expectancy. Riks proposal is to give potential retirees
> the choice: accept Social Security benefits or longevity benefits, not
> both. This is a good idea, IMHO, but ideally I'd rather up the
> retirement age immediately (or over a decade) to 70-75, then let it
> float with the life expectancy. This was attempted partly in the 90's,
> when it was upped to 67.
>
> Under a floating retirement age scenario, as more people take  
> longevity
> treatment, life expectancy goes up, and with it the retirement age, so
> you have to take longevity treatments to collect on your social
> security. The result of this would be that the luddites work  
> themselves
> to their graves and those with or who accept pro-longevity POVs
> survive. This will result in a much more extropic world without
> coersion.
>
> If such a system is enacted, it will be interesting to see the sort of
> rationalizations that some luddites will make to justify accepting
> longevity treatment so that they can 'take the fight for primitivism
> into the future', to the exclusion of others.... ;)
>
>
>
> Mike Lorrey
> Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
> Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
> http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
> Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>