Working Class Retirement when minimum Social Security eligibility age moves to 70+ (moving, 2015)
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.
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?
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
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.
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)
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?
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.
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
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
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.
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.
