Jump to content

Let's Go Spinning


Recommended Posts

Social Security's Real Retirement Age Is 70

"Due to increases in Social Security's Delayed Retirement Credit, the effective retirement age is now 70, with monthly benefits reduced for earlier claiming. Benefit levels at 70 appear appropriate given that rising deductions for Medicare and greater benefit taxation have reduced Social Security's net replacement rates. The shift to 70 should be feasible for many workers given increases in lifespans, health, and education. But vulnerable workers forced to claim early will have low benefits and will be particularly harmed by any further cuts. Policymakers need to inform those who can work that 70 is the new retirement age and devise ways to protect those who cannot work." (Alicia H. Munnell, Center for Retirement Research at Boston College)

Dear Ms. Munnell:

You may wish to apprise your readers that neither Congress nor the Social Security Administration has altered the promise. The delayed retirement increase was envisioned as a sweetener not as a take away. It became 8% a year in 2008 as part of the 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act.

That's 1983! 25 years advance notice should not be viewed as dropping a bombshell. Where ya been?

Frankly, you're the first person who has even suggested that starting benefits at SSNRA is tantamount to claiming benefits early.

Truly, the only protection is needed is from propagandists who wait 25 years to spin a dark web around the Social Security Program. To insinuate there is something duplicitous going on is shameful. Perhaps your time would be better spent devising educational means which responsibility you've conveniently delegated to that nebulous group called the Policymakers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From her article: "Moreover, the level of monthly benefits at 70 appears appropriate given the increased deductions for Medicare premiums, the greater taxation of benefits, the declining importance of the spouses’ benefit, and the diminished sources of other retirement income."

Wow, "appears appropriate" is such a subjective declaration. What appears "appropriate" to me is that more money is better than less money. And that list of "givens" is quite the qualifying statement. Not to mention that it essentially cuts off one of the legs of the so-called "three legged stool" of retirement income. Social Security is not intended to be a sole source of income. That it is the sole source of income for some people is not a failing of the Social Security program but of an economy driven by immediate gratification and inadequate financial education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's 1983! 25 years advance notice

... or 30, maybe? close enough for who it's for. (edit: ah, 1983 to 2008. yes, 25. thanks for the clarification Andy.)

In any case, I don't take the world serious. If memory serves, AtA leaves that to the Cards.

And didn't they used to play that at the beginning of October, when "cold" meant it got below 50?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides I have always been told that the difference between collecting at normal retirement age and 70 is actuararly equivalent. Or put another way as a group if everyone were to collect at NRA or at 70 should yield the same benerfits.

I realize that for any given person it depends if they die before or after a breakeven date but as a group the decision is suppose to be net no effect.

Now if some of you acturaries that hang out around here want to tell me you have run the numbers and what is suppose to happen and what does happen I will listen to that claim.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...