[extropy-chat] Real estate as an extropian investment

[Mike Lorrey]

As I've been thinking about it, the more libertarian thing to do would
be to buy out potential retirees who want longevity: if you take
longevity treatment, you get the equivalent of 3 years of SS benefits,
as a lump sum, or an adjusted amount based on your contributions over
the years, as is used to determine your SS benefits. You can use that
buyout money to pay for your longevity if you want, invest it, etc. but
you are out of the SS system, unless you keep working, and must work,
to start, 4 more years for every 5 years of added life expectancy. I
can see a LOT of libertarians who would jump at that opportunity.

As for pensions outside the SS system, those are up to the individual
pension systems and their stakeholders. Were I in a decision making
position in a pension system, anyone who got longevity treatment would
have to accept a benefit scheme that never drew down on their vested
principal, all they receive would be the annual interest minus the
inflation rate (to keep their stake at a level year to year), or else
they'd have to accept a term limit on their benefits.

--- Bret Kulakovich <bret at bonfireproductions.com> wrote:

> 
> 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
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


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