U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
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 01-11-2017, 11:38 AM
 
Location: Shawnee-on-Delaware, PA
3,904 posts, read 3,583,246 times
Reputation: 7180

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curious Investor View Post
The government is going to raise the minimum eligibility age to 70+. It is only a matter of time.

I have been studying the issue online and countries all over the world are rising the age of their version of Social Security. The USA will follow.
The original Social Security retirement age was 65. That was at a time when most people didn't live to be 65 (please study the issue online). My retirement age (born in 1960) is 67, so even in my lifetime the retirement age has increased.


Why shouldn't the retirement age be increased as people begin to live on average much, much longer than they used to?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-11-2017, 11:51 AM
 
Location: SoCal
13,226 posts, read 6,326,744 times
Reputation: 9839
Quote:
Originally Posted by hurricane harry View Post
Currently the only country in the world that has 70 for retirement age is the Czech Republic. And that is for people born after 1977.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement_age
I don't think the link is entirely correct. I know the UK has raised retirement age to 68 for people born after year 78.

Last edited by volosong; 01-13-2017 at 04:35 PM.. Reason: fixed country name typo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2017, 12:35 PM
 
Location: Shawnee-on-Delaware, PA
3,904 posts, read 3,583,246 times
Reputation: 7180
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbieHere View Post
I don't think the link is entirely correct. I know the UK has raised retirement age to 68 for people born after year 78.
The Wikipedia article does say that, but it uses different wording. It says "...the retirement age for both sexes is to be increased gradually and reach 68 by 2046 or sooner" which is the same thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2017, 12:38 PM
 
3,339 posts, read 2,077,586 times
Reputation: 2367
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtab4994 View Post


Why shouldn't the retirement age be increased as people begin to live on average much, much longer than they used to?
problem is you are pretty much "retired" once you reached 45 and above for no company would want to hire 45 and above
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2017, 12:42 PM
 
Location: Bel Air, California
21,319 posts, read 21,886,413 times
Reputation: 33481
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curious Investor View Post
The government is going to raise the minimum eligibility age to 70+. It is only a matter of time.

I have been studying the issue online and countries all over the world are rising the age of their version of Social Security. The USA will follow.

This is happening in an era where most people have little or no retirement savings. They live paycheck to paycheck. Good jobs are going away and being replaced by low wage service sector and retail jobs.

Assuming the Working Class person today can retire at age 62 and get $1300 a month in Social Security, they can at least survive (barely) on an income of most SS Benefits. (And do OK if they are married and both husband and wife are collecting benefits. But what will happen in the future?

In the future people will have to wait until they are over 70 to collect SS. If their body or mind gives out before that age or they are forced out by their employer and can't get a new job due to age discrimination, what will they do?

(I estimated I would need to have saved $500,000 more in my retirement accounts if I did not have Social Security income. Assumes a monthly 4% withdrawal from the the $500k)

Yee-HAH!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2017, 12:53 PM
 
Location: RVA
2,165 posts, read 1,265,978 times
Reputation: 4456
Of course, if the economy remains as dire as the OP claims, then the 4% rule is no longer valid. 3% is the new 4%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2017, 01:18 PM
 
Location: annandale, va & slidell, la
7,344 posts, read 3,039,094 times
Reputation: 6157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curious Investor View Post
The government is going to raise the minimum eligibility age to 70+. It is only a matter of time.

I have been studying the issue online and countries all over the world are rising the age of their version of Social Security. The USA will follow.

This is happening in an era where most people have little or no retirement savings. They live paycheck to paycheck. Good jobs are going away and being replaced by low wage service sector and retail jobs.

Assuming the Working Class person today can retire at age 62 and get $1300 a month in Social Security, they can at least survive (barely) on an income of most SS Benefits. (And do OK if they are married and both husband and wife are collecting benefits. But what will happen in the future?

In the future people will have to wait until they are over 70 to collect SS. If their body or mind gives out before that age or they are forced out by their employer and can't get a new job due to age discrimination, what will they do?

(I estimated I would need to have saved $500,000 more in my retirement accounts if I did not have Social Security income. Assumes a monthly 4% withdrawal from the the $500k)
You seem to think Social Security is the main source of income for most retirees. Like it's the Holy grail of old age.
If this were true, there are a lot of people that were misguided at an early age. Your $500k nest egg is a minimum for one person retiring with a maximum of 20-years left on this Earth.
Poor financial planning is almost impossible to overcome when you're middle-aged.
Knowing that the age eligibility is 70, why on earth wouldn't one do what's needed to build enough wealth so they could retire before their body wears out?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2017, 01:44 PM
 
Location: WA
5,395 posts, read 21,393,457 times
Reputation: 5893
We have a very short view of history, and concept of 'retirement'.

For thousands of years the majority worked until they could no longer and then counted on family, church, or limited community resources to stay alive. Only the wealthy had resources saved to 'retire'. It was less than 100 years ago that SS was conceived as a way to keep the elderly from starving in their last few years.

In today's affluent society we have decided that we should have the ability to live a rich life in our later years (I am), but trying to fund a program from the federal level is a big challenge. I know that if my contributions would have been invested (and compounded) at just treasury rates I would be much better off, but you have to factor in demographics and the inefficiencies (and guarantees) of a national program.

A small adjustment to retirement age and required contributions is a reasonable change to keep the system sound for the future.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2017, 01:55 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,904 posts, read 14,232,069 times
Reputation: 16088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curious Investor View Post
I have been studying the issue online and countries all over the world are rising the age of their version of Social Security.
Your sources are wrong or illegitimate.

Retirement Ages | ETK

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
The unstated implication is that everyone should have SOMETHING set aside by 65.
Not everyone gets to live a Beautiful Life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtab4994 View Post
The original Social Security retirement age was 65. That was at a time when most people didn't live to be 65 (please study the issue online).
Your sources are wrong, too.
Quote:
Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women, and the retirement age was 65. But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due mainly to high infant mortality, and someone who died as a child would never have worked and paid into Social Security. A more appropriate measure is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood.
[emphasis in original]

[mod cut]

Last edited by volosong; 01-13-2017 at 04:39 PM.. Reason: rude
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2017, 03:52 PM
 
Location: Southwest Washington State
21,868 posts, read 14,371,350 times
Reputation: 30741
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
70 will not fly for decades in my opinion . one of the bills being proposed has 69 as a full retirement age but it is ramping up to that level over 48 years .

the idea being that in 48 years you would likely enjoy the same amount of years healthy in retirement as one does now based on average life expectancy .

the bill calls for the above , a slight increase in pay roll taxes and a raising of the cap on earnings .
I agree with this. Full retirement age is now 67, no? And many people do NOT work that long now.

The idea that at age 70 most people would live to be 90 is preposterous.
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.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top