U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-08-2011, 10:43 PM
 
10,825 posts, read 10,447,030 times
Reputation: 34723

Advertisements

My question is simple and straightforward. With all the pressure on social security because of upcoming "babyboomer retirements" why not eliminate early retirement at 62 completely? Is anyone aware of any studies that show how much this would save Social Security over the next ten years?

Look, if people have private retirement plans that let them leave the labor force at 55, 58, or 60 that's the way it is. However, why should the government jump on this bandwagon and make a provision for early retirement at all?

I probably sound like a "killjoy", but these are exactly the kinds of hard questions we need to be asking.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-08-2011, 10:53 PM
 
16,434 posts, read 20,029,180 times
Reputation: 9564
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
My question is simple and straightforward. With all the pressure on social security because of upcoming "babyboomer retirements" why not eliminate early retirement at 62 completely? Is anyone aware of any studies that show how much this would save Social Security over the next ten years?
When those boomers were young and ready to enter the job market, there were way too many of them for the number of available jobs. To compound the matter, Federal employment mandates required that minorities be given priority for hiring, so many were left out. Allowing early retirement for those able and wishing to do so freed up positions for young people badly needing jobs.
The way to fix SS is simple: #1 stop stealing from it. #2 raise the income cap on SS tax. #3 stop stealing from it!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2011, 11:07 PM
 
Location: Maryland
1,534 posts, read 3,926,836 times
Reputation: 2308
Your assumption is incorrect.

Its not any more expensive to the SS trust fund either way - mathematically, the reduced benefit cost for a longer period equals the full benefit cost for a shorter period. Uncle Sam is not giving you any freebies.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2011, 11:10 PM
 
Location: Flippin AR
5,453 posts, read 4,679,608 times
Reputation: 6120
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
My question is simple and straightforward. With all the pressure on social security because of upcoming "babyboomer retirements" why not eliminate early retirement at 62 completely? Is anyone aware of any studies that show how much this would save Social Security over the next ten years?

Look, if people have private retirement plans that let them leave the labor force at 55, 58, or 60 that's the way it is. However, why should the government jump on this bandwagon and make a provision for early retirement at all? I probably sound like a "killjoy", but these are exactly the kinds of hard questions we need to be asking.
I have a better idea. Instead of putting 100% of the pain (mostly caused by government criminal theft) on MY generation (which already is being left destitute thanks to unending Depression and unemployment), let's share the pain just a little bit.

The majority of current retirees getting Social Security retired at 62. Most of them have healthy pensions in addition. This group got to work BEFORE the working class had been robbed of all benefits, wage increases, and reasonable hours. They also largely worked under the reduced SS taxes prior to the 1983 changes. They paid the least, but get the most, and are totally exempt from ANY discussion of limiting their ongoing windfall.

My generation, the one that from the beginning paid maximum SS taxes due to entering the work force in 1983, along with not being able to collect full retirement until age 67, also got to work entirely during the time of wages begin stagnant, benefits costs being shifted to us, working hours skyrocketing, compensation actually decreasing, almost no upward mobility, and the wiping out of pensions to boot. Our generation was robbed blind by Big Business and Big Government, in collusion to destroy the economy and rob all the wealth from the Middle Class.

Remember that the 1983 SS changes DID solve the problem of the retirement of the Baby Boom--we in effect paid for all current beneficiaries, but also paid for our retirement in the form of the SS Trust Fund ($2.5 trillion of taxes paid over outgoes). What happened? Corrupt government STOLE and SPENT the entire $2.5 trillion, replaced it with worthless IOUS, and NOW we are told they "can't afford" our SS benefits.

In effect, we paid government for our SS benefits already, but since they spent the money on other things we are told we are just SOL. All proposals now are to phase in the reductions until we are left with nothing, or a retirement age beyond our life expectancy. Problem solved!

My plan is to let the current generation of retirees who are WEALTHY and don't even NEED the Social Security that pads their bank accounts share a little bit of the pain that has been imposed 100% on my generation.

Yes, Washington continues to basically rob our generation blind of EVERYTHING we have, so that the current crop of "HAVES" do not have to sacrifice one penny. I can tell you right now that if my generation is robbed any further, we will not go down quietly as we watch those who were lucky enough to retire at 62 live lives of luxury, while we are expected to work until we die--and still have nothing even then.

I know we've behaved like spineless worms so far, but when we work these insane hours all our lives and in the end have nothing to show for it? Then we won't have anything to lose, but a lifetime of frustration and anger that will have to go somewhere.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-08-2011, 11:58 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,017 posts, read 18,762,839 times
Reputation: 32431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilgrim21784 View Post
Your assumption is incorrect.

Its not any more expensive to the SS trust fund either way - mathematically, the reduced benefit cost for a longer period equals the full benefit cost for a shorter period. Uncle Sam is not giving you any freebies.
My understanding is the same as Pilgrim's.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2011, 12:07 AM
 
6,321 posts, read 4,212,381 times
Reputation: 16717
1) people who have jobs consisting of hard physical labor often need to retire at an earlier age due to wear and tear on the physical body

2) many people by age 62, even those not doing hard physical labor, find that their bodies are wearing out and they suffer from a variety of maladies that make working 40 hours per week difficult

3) it is a fallacy that most people retiring have a substantial or healthy pension to fall back on; 401(k)'s started replacing employer given pensions many years ago, and it is mostly only government workers who have a nice pension these days
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2011, 12:12 AM
 
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
26,489 posts, read 44,319,213 times
Reputation: 30249
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog View Post
I have a better idea. ....
but when we work these insane hours all our lives and in the end have nothing to show for it? ...
OH, so you grew up an a dairy farm too ?

I was really grateful to get to college where I only had to work 70 hrs a week (3 jobs) to pay my way... (back in the 1960's). That only lasted one short yr, when I became an eldercare giver for a disabled parent (for the next 32 yrs, as well as work 3 jobs the rest of my career. (that did not pay too well for the hours involved)

Yes, life throws curve balls, just gotta deal with it. I will admit it would have been nice to get healthcare and a pension after spending 30+ yrs at an excellent employer (who gave me the adios option 6 weeks prior to retirement... oh well, next chapter (Back to school, for me)


I know very few current 'seniors' cutting the fat hog... (and I volunteer with many). Most are getting by on very little. There are some who are really cashing it in, but usually due to selling their business that they worked in for 40 yrs, or they were government employees. School teacher couples are often doing quite well (some over 100k combined pension + healthcare bennys) They will insist they struggled to get by all their working life, so now they deserve it. What-ever.... I guess I made some bad choices
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2011, 12:43 AM
 
4,948 posts, read 17,211,560 times
Reputation: 2880
Regarding the boomers and the S.S. we did pay into it to with it would be there for us.
Now, it is there, Frankly the unemployment and lay offs make us take the money now!
try at 65 to get a great job, so just get the S.S. we did pay for many years.
We did earn the money, and if you take it early you do not get the full earnings.
Every person who works pays for this benefit and take it early, is OK some need to.
say at 66 you get 1600, and each year comes wit a minus of that money if you take it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2011, 12:59 AM
 
Location: Phoenix
354 posts, read 1,153,531 times
Reputation: 431
Quote:
Originally Posted by susanra View Post
1) people who have jobs consisting of hard physical labor often need to retire at an earlier age due to wear and tear on the physical body

2) many people by age 62, even those not doing hard physical labor, find that their bodies are wearing out and they suffer from a variety of maladies that make working 40 hours per week difficult

3) it is a fallacy that most people retiring have a substantial or healthy pension to fall back on; 401(k)'s started replacing employer given pensions many years ago, and it is mostly only government workers who have a nice pension these days
These are excellent points. For folks that physically spent at 62 from a career at hard labor maybe the answer is not retirement but a shift to a job that is not so physically demanding if that is a possibility.

It is wrong to assume the other guy is making out like a bandit and you are the victim. I have been contributing to SS for nearly 45 years now but have no inclination to retire early. I wouldn't see anything wrong with part of the solution include for people not already at or near retirement to have means testing. That along with allowing people to contribute to and manage their own retirement funds could lessen the burden on the shrinking demographic actually still contributing. Having said that, Washington has an unsatiable appetite for our money and we have to struggle against it year in and year out.

As far as the generational animosity, how do you youngsters like Obama now? That stinker and the unprecedented havoc he is wreaking on the economy is going to be part of your legacy. He is going to make the Carter years seem like the good old days.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2011, 01:19 AM
 
Location: Phoenix
354 posts, read 1,153,531 times
Reputation: 431
I should say that among the people I know at work in the past year we have had two retirement eligible boomers die, one of an embolism while sitting at his desk.

Why retire at all if you are healthy and for the most part enjoy what you do? I am not sure I could handle not having a motivating challenge. Most likely a semi-retirement would be the best route.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top