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.
I voted no as I have no interest in being poor in my old age. My SS will be considerably more at age 66 than at 55 because I will substitute 11 years of high pay for 11 years of lower pay. Moreover, my pension will be more than 2.5 times what my pension would have been if I took it 11 years ago. My guess is that I would have left at between $30-35k annually in income on the table by retiring at 55.
I also eschewed retiring at 62 because I would have walked away from about $12k. I will be making about 98% of my current gross income. That means that my money in my savings/investments are "free" for me to spend when and on what luxuries I might want or as a cushion against inflation in the future rather being drawn down to pay for living expenses early in my retirement. If I die early on, I have the satisfaction of knowing that my crits will be provided for, my favorite local charities will get some cash, and my brothers will get some $$$, too.
Age 55 is just too young to retire, for most healthy, active people. Yes, I know some do retire at 55 - and younger - but I don't think most would be happy with that.
I retired at age 65, primarily because that was when I was able to sell my business. It could have taken a year or two longer. That would have been fine with me. I have enough trouble as it is, just keeping myself busy enough not to go bonkers.
It may be too early for you but so far many people answering the poll have said they would be happy to call it quits as long they had enough money to retire on. I suspect that unlike the educated professional people on City-Data, the typical American is completely bored, tired, worn out and just so over working a full time job by age 55 they could just scream.
I suspect that unlike the educated professional people on City-Data, the typical American is completely bored, tired, worn out and just so over working a full time job by age 55 they could just scream.
So why should the "less educated" be rewarded by being able to retire at 55? People work hard to obtain a college degree.
You're basically saying the Federal government should give an extra $150-200k+ or so to each retiree. How do you propose to pay for this? And dirtydan57 brings up a good point...you still have to pay much more for medical benefits when you retire before 65...
Last edited by Vic Romano; 12-31-2015 at 03:34 PM..
I have re-read the original post and I'm not sure if the OP is implying that the U.S. Congress "ought" to modify Social Security to allow people to collect at earlier ages or if he is engaging in some wishful, imaginative thinking and asking simply what people would do "if".
If the former, I'm sure the OP must realize that such a move is not at all realistic from a financial standpoint. Social Security funding is a bit on the shaky side already, although certainly not about to go bankrupt as some would have it. So where would that huge amount of funding come from all of a sudden?
I'm a manager in commercial/industrial/marine real estate, responsible for administration of leases, utility management, and the billing system for about 400 tenants.
Thanks for sharing that Hemlock, and congratulations on finding a job that you like. Some people never find "the right place".
Well yeah, Duh. Although as DirtyDan says…it's about the health care, more than the Soc. Sec.
I'm only working until 65 to qualify for Medicare. If I retire younger than that, more of my retirement income will go to health insurance. And I'm just not comfortable with how large a percentage of my retirement income that would be.
I also plan to work full time -- until I retire full time.
No working part-time for me..UNLESS I find the. perfect. SEASONAL. job. I want to travel a lOT -- and stay gone. So unless I can find a job that only wants me for half a year….no retirement working for me. A part time job that necessitates me being there 3 days a week…is no good to me. I might as well work full time if I can't get a way I travel like I really want to. Tied down part time is no different than bing tied down full time…to me personally.
Assuming it would have been available when I was 55, ten years ago, I would have liked having the extra money to allow me to leave a job I am tired of doing to embark on a second career, doing something I would like more, even if it paid less. The SS might make up the difference. Because that wasn't available, I never really gave it much thought, so I don't even know what that new career would involve.
Such a plan that would allow older workers to take less stressful or less physical jobs later in life would allow them to work longer and would provide more opportunities for the younger workers to move into better paying jobs.
As it is now, once past 55, it is almost impossible for someone to quit a job to go into another line of work.
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.
Although as DirtyDan says…it's about the health care, more than the Soc. Sec.
