What do you think Retirement Age should be (to collect Social Security)?

[KittyWampus]

Personally, I think lowering the age to 59 would be great. And maybe lower percentage you'd collect to maybe 65%.

[RKP5637]

1. I would think that is fine! The R's (Regressives) I'm sure think of 89 as a low age. n/t

[Cleita]

2. I think it should be fifty-five, for the reason that by

that time most people have spent 30 years on the job and it's time to open up the job market to the young people coming in. It would reduce unemployment. Increasing the retirement age would only make jobs scarcer.

[glinda]

22. 55. That would help me as I am unable to work yet do not qualify for handicapped.

At least I would have a little money coming in that I worked for.

[NaturalHigh]

43. You took the words right out of my mouth...

or off my keyboard. Lowering the SS retirement age would be a big help to the American economy, contrary to conventional wisdom.

[theophilus]

3. Full SS collection should begin at 65. I think that is just right.

Longevity has not improved for everyone at the same pace. We need "turnover" in the job market. Now, I would like to see Medicare, for all, start immediately.

[old mark]

4. 55 with reduced benefits, same as they are at 62 now. I retired at 59, and

I don't regret it at all, ever.

mark

[monmouth]

5. George Will thinks 74 is juuuusst right...n/t

[bobbolink]

6. I was going to say 60. I will happily take your 59. ^_^

[Sherman A1]

7. I would go with 55/60

55 for early retirement with a requirement for (those able) civic service of some sort (libraries, mentoring, museums, parks departments, schools, nursing homes, meals on wheels, etc)

60 for full retirement

65 for full the penalty to come off any wages that you might make (I think it's 70 now).

and all of the above with full Medicare.

I think it would open up the job market, provide "volunteers" to many needy programs/institutions and help the retirees stay active. It would also be a boon to the vacation/travel/leisure industry as those in the 55 - 65 range would most likely do some traveling and alike. I am sure the more than one new fishing pole would be sold along with more than one hotel room be booked (thus creating more jobs).

[CTyankee]

12. I retired at 65 and immediately started a part time job doing something

I liked better...and only 15 hours a week. I could take a week or so off (w/o pay since I the job had no benefits) and travel.

[TBF]

14. Considering the unemployment, with people getting laid off in their 50's and

new graduates unable to find work, 55 would be just fine with me. What do they expect people to do - print money in their basements?

[Sherman A1]

15. Agreed

I think there is some "rule thing" about that printing money idea and I am still looking for seeds for the money tree.

[dflprincess]

25. I think the penalty for wages has been lifted completely or at least the age lowered

but what I find strange is that "full retirement" for my age group is considered to be 66 BUT if I work until I'm 70 I'd get just over another $500/month (per my last annual statement from SS). I figure I'll need that money to pay for my Medicare supplement so I keep thinking I'm stuck until I'm 70.

[12string]

8. retirement age

55 with full benefits

[jtown1123]

9. 60-62. People in their 50s can't find work. It is cruel to make it any higher than that.

[caraher]

10. How about a sliding value based on life expectancy

given career history, income, etc.? Come up with a formula that lets people who've worked physically-demanding, health-destroying jobs retire earlier...

[xchrom]

11. 58. -- that's what was starting to happen in the 70's, it's appropriate and opens

positions for younger workers.

[Kennah]

13. Death

Oh, wait, sorry. I misread the title as "What do you think Retirement Age would be".

[patrice]

16. Remove the cap and allow people to collect full benefits at 60 - just my guess. nt

[Gato Moteado]

17. 35

nt

[Khan Descend]

18. 42

The universal answer to everything. :D

[AllyCat]

19. I like 55. It would open up the job market for others and

those who don't really want to "retire" might have some great ideas and experience to start their own businesses, opening up even more jobs. Maybe a reduced benefit level but still some payout while starting up a new business. Lots of possibilities there. Of course, corporations don't want the competition or innovation so the push for a higher age continues.

[Martin Eden]

20. Technological advances should provide for earlier retirement

Since the advent of the industrial age and especially over the last several decades, new inventions have vastly increased productivity. More goods can be produced and services rendered per hour of human labor than ever before ... but if the average worker is benefitting from the fruits of that labor it isn't with more time to enjoy life outside the workplace. Many people are working harder and longer than ever, while others can't find the work they need.

REAL PROGRESS in the modern world would mean MORE FREEDOM with more quality time with family and for travel and personal growth, but instead we're being told our noses must be pressed to the grndstone well into our senior years. I think it's pretty evident who is enjoying the increased productivity and the fruits of our labor, and they just got their tax cuts extended.

[Juche]

21. Keep the current ages, try to create a new ultra-low age for 55

There are lots of seniors who want to work but who can't find jobs. Making them wait until 62 isn't always realistic, not everyone can wait 10 years for a job to open up.

If they can find some kind of hardship SS program for those 55 who want jobs but can't find them, I'd support that.

[toddwv]

23. People should be able to collect partial benefits at 55

with full retirement available at 60. It's time those boomers cough up those jobs and hit the sand. :)

[Better Believe It]

24. 55

[area51]

26. 55

As other posters have mentioned, one of the pluses of this would be to help free up jobs. At 55, some people's bodies just get worn out.

[Lugnut]

27. 59 is good.

I was thinking 60 but 59 works for me. This would be possible if the caps were removed. Fat chance of that ever happening.

My 63 year old b-i-l would retire in a heartbeat if he could get Medicare right now. He works in the trades - steam-fitter/pipe-fitter - and his worn out body has to slog through two more years of it before he can retire.

[TheKentuckian]

28. 55 for full benefits

[csziggy]

29. I think it should be flexible depending on the individual

Instead of making people apply for disability when they become unable to work at an earlier than "normal" age, let them retire with dignity. If someone is in good health and able to work at a job they enjoy, let them work as long as they wish and are able. Setting an age at which to retire can be a way to force people out when they still want to work or as a way to penalize those who are unable to keep working. People are so different in their life spans and health, an arbitrary retirement age will be unfair to many.

[TBF]

32. When has it ever been mandatory to retire? Honestly.

This is just more right-wing rhetoric ...

Of course the age wouldn't be "mandatory", but it would allow folks to retire at any earlier age, perhaps with the lower level of benefits, which gives younger workers a chance to have jobs. It's not like folks getting laid off in their 50's are going to get offered high level positions unless they have superior training/experience.

[csziggy]

34. Many companies use the SS retirement eligible age as their mandatory retirement age

If they haven't already dumped the older workers, they use that to get rid of them. It's a reality.

[TBF]

35. How can they legally do that with protected classes? That's BS. nt

[csziggy]

36. Not all classes are protected and there are methods used to force retirement

Mandatory retirement age is the age where are person has to retire if he is holding a particular type of job. Although mandatory retirement has been abolished in the US, there are certain types of jobs that fall under the purview of mandatory retirement laws.

There are certain jobs that are too dangerous for older people or jobs that require high physical and mental skills fall under the mandatory retirement laws. Some of these jobs are those of military personnel, fire fighters, airline pilots and police officers. In these jobs, the age of retirement is mandated and is arbitrary. Retirement is not based on an actual physical evaluation of the person. This is why many people think that mandatory retirement laws for these sorts of professions are a form of discrimination.

In case of police officers, fire fighters and other first responders, a physical fitness test is compulsory. If they do not pass the test, they are forced to retire. Even truck drivers come under mandatory retirement laws as they have to pass a physical exam every 2 years if they want to hold on to their commercial driving license. A profession that requires mental acuity is teaching and teachers are required to retire at 60 or 65, depending on the institution. This said, many educators are still capable of imparting knowledge but because they have reached the age, they are forced into retirement. Pilots are another lot who are forced to retire the moment they hit 60.
http://www.babyboomercaretaker.com/retirement/Mandatory-Retirement-Laws.html

So it is not BS, it is reality.

[TBF]

39. Jobs such as police officers and military personnel have pensions -

so again I ask why you would take away benefits from those who might not have any back-up? These are also professions in which one can reasonably understand that aging might have an impact on how they do their job. Do you want to be in an airplane flown by an 80-year old who is convinced he is in good health? Maybe he is, but likely he is not as sharp as he was at 40.

If your argument is simply that retirement should not be mandatory, that is fine, but why tie it to benefits? More specifically, why risk the retirement of millions for just a few who may think they should be able to work a few years longer?

To be frank, I think this is an attempt by you to advocate doing away with social security because you don't want to pay for it.

[csziggy]

42. Why are you claiming things I NEVER said?

My original statement was:

Instead of making people apply for disability when they become unable to work at an earlier than "normal" age, let them retire with dignity. If someone is in good health and able to work at a job they enjoy, let them work as long as they wish and are able. Setting an age at which to retire can be a way to force people out when they still want to work or as a way to penalize those who are unable to keep working. People are so different in their life spans and health, an arbitrary retirement age will be unfair to many.

You are inferring a meaning which was not in my original comments. I did NOT advocate taking SS away. I am saying that any arbitrary age for retirement is unfair to some. What I mean is that some people need to retire earlier than others and some can and want to work longer.

I do not understand where the fuck you think I am advocating doing away with social security.

And oh yeah - ask the people who have pensions how well that is working out since states and municipalities are attempting to get out of their obligations. We need a system that will provide for all and that is not subject to the will of the current batch of politicians.

If I were eligible for Social Security, I would be counting the days until I could apply since I am disabled NOW at 58. My husband has to work to get health insurance since I am uninsurable. If I ever get SS benefits, it will be for his time working. I never paid enough into the system to collect, so I would be out on the street but for him.

So no way I want to do away with Social Security - I just want to see it applied fairly.

[TBF]

44. "Applied fairly" is too subjective - which is why we've got SSD

to apply for - I know because my dad started getting it in his late 30's along with his military disability. So you are going to require doctor's appointments for everyone before they are allowed to retire?

There is no need to mess with this program at all, we've all been paying in for years. This is exactly what the rich folk want - everyone turning against each other and pointing fingers at who is "deserving" or not, when it is supposed to be a fall-back program for any who reach it at 62/65/67... after they have paid in their entire lives. I am in my mid-40's now, a stay at home mom, but I worked until I was 40 and paid in at the highest rate for 10 years prior to retiring. They've already made enough off me to pay my retirement, not to mention what my husband has been paying in.

Why in the world would we chance making it harder to get? If you're disabled earlier, then go to your doctor and get evaluated so you can get it sooner - there is nothing stopping you from applying for disability NOW.

[HuckleB]

30. 60 for reduced benefits and 63 for full...

[ipaint]

31. 55 full benefits. nt

39 years of crappy jobs is quite enough.

[Vinca]

33. The way the job situation is right now, I'd also say 55.

People over 50 have a hard time getting hired and the jobs they would take are needed by younger people.

[Uncle Joe]

37. 21, but we would need lots of free robots for that to happen, so we better stay

on the good side of the Japanese.

Thanks for the thread, KittyWampus.

[TBF]

40. +1 awesome response!

You're going to give the anti-social security trolls in this thread a heart attack, Uncle Joe.

[Warren Stupidity]

47. The more work is automated the more people are impoverished.

This best of all possible systems we've got here cannot function for the good of all.

[Enthusiast]

38. How about 60. A nice round figure. nt

[ThomThom]

41. lowering it would remove people from the work ranks and give

younger people jobs, I support that

[Warren Stupidity]

45. 60

And where is the political party advocating for improving retirement benefits?

[mmonk]

46. 55

If we are to be taken out of workforce, then to mitigate the economic damage, it should be lowered.

[etherealtruth]

48. 60

With full benefits.

Not compulsory retirement ...simply an option.

I can't fathom how some "older" folk can continue to do extremely physically demanding jobs (some do, and do it well).

I'm 49. My work requires some physical work "out in the field" .... 80% of my job is comprised of compiling and interpreting existing data ....it's the 20% that is becoming more uncomfortable (difficult). i can do that 20% as well as younger counter parts (though with more pain).... I can't imagine doing it in 10 -20 years.