Why do we talk about *the* SS retirement age?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

Whenever I get that "Here is just how poor you are going to be soon" summary of benefits from the SSA it is broken down by if you retire at 62, if you retire at 65, if you retire at 68...

The retirement age is that age at which you can retire and collect "full benefits" but that's kind of an arbitrary label. If I work until I'm dead 68 I get more than the "full" benefit.

Put another way, if the retirement age was raised to age x but the benefits from retirement at age (x-3) were closer to the full benefit then it would be less of a raise of retirement age (relatively). On the other hand, if it were lowered to 64 but you couldn't collect anything if you retired at 62 that would be a big cut, but would be described as lowering the retirement age.

This is not a contentious post for or against anything. Just kind of throwing the topic out there.

[MineralMan]

1. You're right. I started receiving SS at 62. I get less per month than

I would had I waited. My full retirement age is 66. I'm 65 now. I did the math and guessed at how long I'd live, based on my health and habits, and decided that 62 made more sense. I knew how much less I'd get every month...about 25% less. The math worked for me.

[elocs]

3. I am 58 now and will take SS at 62.

It will be less but I have a small Teamsters pension that kicks in at age 65 that will pretty much make up the difference. My full retirement age is 66 and I've crunched the numbers and know that it would take me up to age 72 to make up the difference in what I would collect from 62 to 66. Besides, I don't feel like working another 4 years to gain a few hundred more bucks from SS that I will get from the pension anyways.

I'm poor now and will be poor when I retire but I know how to live poor and will adjust my lifestyle accordingly as I have always done. The odds are by the time I retire at 62 I will be debt free and actually be better off than I am now.

At 58 I still wake up in the morning a appreciate that nothing hurts. I think there's a real good chance I will feel this good in another 4 years and I intend to enjoy retirement while I still have the good health to enjoy it.

[sarcasmo]

4. I am with yeah elocs, been living poor for as long as I have been living.

[elocs]

5. It's not real hard for me since I am in good health and it's just me to worry about.

My living expenses are low, my needs are few, and I am easily entertained.

[BzaDem]

2. Because "cutting benefits" doesn't sound nice.

Republicans want to talk about raising the retirement age, because "cutting benefits" sounds bad to people. I guess they want to make clear that the reason they want to cut benefits is because life expectancy is rising (even though that life expectancy and work ability AT 65 is the real metric, which they ignore). Lower infant mortality rates raise life expectancy (as it is calculated), but that should have nothing to do with when people retire.

[groundloop]

6. They'd rather cut benefits than *gasp* remove the cap on SS tax and make rich pay more

[auntsue]

7. we can change the wage base

and the Social Security solvency problem goes away. AND is it fair that poor and middle class workers pay 6.20 % while millionaires pay .66%? I mean really.

info at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Wage_Base ( know it wiki but it's still true)



In 2010, Social Security Wage Base is $106,800 and the Social Security tax rate is 6.20% paid by the employee and 6.20% paid by the employer.<1>

A person with $10,000 of gross income will have $620.00 withheld as Social Security tax from his check, with the employer sending an additional $620.00.

A person with $110,000 of gross income in 2010 incurs Social Security tax of $6,621.60 (resulting in an effective rate of approximately 6% - the rate is lower because the income is more than the 2010 "wage base", see below), with $6,621.60 paid by the employer.

A person earning a million dollars in wages will pay the same $6,621.60 in Social Security tax (resulting in an effective rate of approximately 0.66%), with similar employer matching.



The Congressional Budget Office considers the employer share of taxes to be passed on to employees in the form of lower wages that would otherwise be paid and counts them as part of the employees’ tax burden.<2> Self-employed individuals pay the entire amount of applicable tax.

[Hannah Bell]

9. +100.

[Hannah Bell]

8. i fail to see the relevance, since what they want to do is cut scheduled benefits.

seems kind of academic.

& i'd guess it will affect benefits at "early" retirement as well. if not soon, then eventually.