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.
"Early" retirement is often discussed in this Retirement Forum but rarely defined. Obviously there is no official definition, and we all tend to view issues like that from the perspective of our own situation. For example, the California teachers' pension system (CalSTRS) has rather severe penalties for retiring at age 55, and those penalties become less severe with increasing age. So when I retired at age 61.5 I viewed that as a "normal" retirement age because that's pretty much what it was within our own system.
But an elderly aunt told me how wonderful it was that I could retire early, which caused me to reflect. For her generation, age 65 was the Social Security full retirement age, so for her 65 was "normal".
Since that time I joined City-Data and I have been astounded at the large numbers of people who have managed to retire at amazingly young ages, like in their forties. Also, I have learned that a lot of pension systems are more generous than my CalSTRS; for example many of them grant a "full" pension after only 30 years of service, regardless of age. I don't see how those generous systems can afford such a thing, and maybe some of them really can't.
So I was curious what individual posters' opinions are as to what constitutes early retirement. Please give us your feedback.
Edited to add: I was the first voter in my poll, and I chose "Younger than 60". Doubtless that is an old-fashioned notion, but that's how I think of it.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,550 posts, read 81,117,303 times
Reputation: 57755
I know several people, including three relatives that retired with full pensions at 55. One was a federal employee, two others in law enforcement. The rest had 30 or more years in at 55 and were in retirement plans that were really good, and no longer available. So for me, early means younger than 55.
I think of "retiring early" as someone who retired younger than 65. Most of the people I know retired between 60 and 65 and a handful between 55-60. I retired at 50...with a pension. It was based upon a formula using years of service and the minimum age of eligibility was 50.
"Early" retirement is often discussed in this Retirement Forum but rarely defined. Obviously there is no official definition, and we all tend to view issues like that from the perspective of our own situation. For example, the California teachers' pension system (CalSTRS) has rather severe penalties for retiring at age 55, and those penalties become less severe with increasing age. So when I retired at age 61.5 I viewed that as a "normal" retirement age because that's pretty much what it was within our own system.
But an elderly aunt told me how wonderful it was that I could retire early, which caused me to reflect. For her generation, age 65 was the Social Security full retirement age, so for her 65 was "normal".
Since that time I joined City-Data and I have been astounded at the large numbers of people who have managed to retire at amazingly young ages, like in their forties. Also, I have learned that a lot of pension systems are more generous than my CalSTRS; for example many of them grant a "full" pension after only 30 years of service, regardless of age. I don't see how those generous systems can afford such a thing, and maybe some of them really can't.
So I was curious what individual posters' opinions are as to what constitutes early retirement. Please give us your feedback.
Edited to add: I was the first voter in my poll, and I chose "Younger than 60". Doubtless that is an old-fashioned notion, but that's how I think of it.
Younger than 62. You don't have that option in the poll.
Younger than 62. You don't have that option in the poll.
I agreed with you however the next most appropriate age to that was 60 which I chose. I can see arguments for all of those choices. As someone who knows many people in jobs that can wear a body down I know that some folks I know might just make it to 62 barely with many not being able to continue working full time after 55.
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.
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.
