Should The Retirement Age Be Raised To 67? (Psst. It already Has Been Raised To 67)

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 10:38:47 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

While John Boehner's walkback of his call to raise the retirement age to 70 is properly the headline from his appearance on Eliot Spitzer's show last night, but Boehner's, and part of the Media, obliviousness regarding what the retirement age is already scheduled to be is alos important. Reporting on Boehner's walkback, The Hill writes:

[Boehners's] comments walk back remarks from late June, when he said the retirement age would eventually need to be raised by five years, from 65 to 70.

(Emphasis supplied.) FTR:

Full retirement age (also called "normal retirement age") had been 65 for many years. However, beginning with people born in 1938 or later, that age gradually increases until it reaches 67 for people born after 1959.

< Paranoia At The NYTimes | Unemployment Claims Rise >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Should The Retirement Age Be Raised To 67? (Psst. It already Has Been Raised To 67) | 23 comments (23 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

My solution (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by Saul on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 11:02:59 AM EST

is that there should be no salary cap on the SS tax and medicare.

I feel we lose too much revenue for SS by keeping this annual cap. Currently it is $106,800.

There should be no cap. Therefore millionaires like Bill Gates would have to continue paying on his monthly salary through out the year rather than reaching this cap in probably the first 3 days or less of each new year.

: We must raise the retirement age (none / 0) (#22)
by NMvoiceofreason on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 12:46:05 PM EST

...to 99.
This will allow us to continue looting the Social Security "lock-box" trust fund to continue funding wars of aggression throughout the world. It will also remove the dependence of people upon the State that has lifted them out of poverty. It is important that we do not destroy the most successful government program of all time, but instead preserve it for the millennia.
And yes, rich people need to pay their fair share of supporting our military too.

Part of the problem is that we have (5.00 / 5) (#13)
by Anne on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 11:49:50 AM EST

people making decisions for us that are not based in fact; there simply is no reason - and no excuse - why John Boehner doesn't' know what the retirement age is, or how it came to be what it is. And if he doesn't have even that basic information right, what are the chances he has any of the rest of it right? Pretty slim, I'd say.

This is how people who still think their elected representatives are experts on everything come to also be ill-informed - because they take as a given that what they're being told is correct.

Interesting side note is that actuarily speaking, even if one takes the reduced benefit at 62, by the time that person dies, he or she will generally have collected more overall than they would have if they had waited to take the full benefit at 67. Sure, if you add in the salary one would be collecting in the years between early and full retirement, along with the chance to add to one's IRA or 401(k), that person's going to be making more by waiting.

But, if you can't keep working, or you just plain want to have some time to enjoy life, and can afford to do so, taking the reduced benefit at 62 isn't a terrible idea.

and there are (none / 0) (#1)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 10:43:28 AM EST

incentives to wait until 67 for people born earlier. like me.

And (none / 0) (#2)
by CoralGables on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 11:00:57 AM EST

even more incentive to wait until 70, but could actually start collecting at 62.


yes (none / 0) (#4)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 11:03:30 AM EST

but when you wait till 67 or 70 those numbers really start to change.


Yes they do (none / 0) (#5)
by CoralGables on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 11:12:48 AM EST

and they jump a little each month you wait correct? (until 70 anyway). It's a bit of a roll of the dice. How long will I live? Should I use savings and wait to take a higher SS check or save savings and take SS now. It would be such a benefit for mathematically inclined people if we were provided with our end date.


Not just an end date (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by jbindc on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 11:14:35 AM EST

But some jobs are so physically demanding that it's hard to make it to 67 or 70. See many manufacturing jobs.


not arguing that at all (none / 0) (#7)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 11:15:58 AM EST

just pointing out, well, what I was pointing out.


but I do think (none / 0) (#8)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 11:16:54 AM EST

its a real incentive to those of us who do not have physically demanding jobs to stay at it longer.


But will we still be 'employable'? (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by nycstray on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 11:22:17 AM EST

the decision to work until 70 may not be up to us . . .


If no choice (none / 0) (#10)
by CoralGables on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 11:26:36 AM EST

then the decision becomes easy, and you start collecting when the need arises anytime after 62.

But the Capt is right, if you enjoy what you are doing and can continue working, the incentive to wait grows each month until age 70.


Raise Your Hand (none / 0) (#12)
by AngryBlackGuy on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 11:43:35 AM EST

If you knew that this is how it worked.

[Hand down]

I had no idea.


If you don't mind working your way (none / 0) (#19)
by CoralGables on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 12:29:04 PM EST

through a less than completely user friendly Government website, you can play around with retirement scenarios one year at a time to see how your own SS benefits might grow under our current plan from age 62 to 70 HERE


you should also (none / 0) (#20)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 12:41:08 PM EST

at some point start getting these things from the SS dept that look like junk mail but are really listings of all the taxes you ever paid and how much money you will get monthly at each of the target ages.


: I love getting that statement (none / 0) (#23)
by ruffian on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 04:22:34 PM EST

Really interesting to look at my lifetime salary history and play out the retirement scenarios.
Parental history is hard to go by - my mom died at 62 and never collected, but my dad made it to 82...how to plan, how to plan.

Then there's the other side of the problem (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by jbindc on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 11:43:04 AM EST

As more people work longer and longer, there are fewer jobs that open up for new people who enter the workforce every year.


I was going to mention that (none / 0) (#14)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 11:50:51 AM EST

as far as not knowing how it worked.

if you as old as me you would.
;-)


I don't think I am (5.00 / 0) (#15)
by jbindc on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 11:55:25 AM EST

But I'm old enough that when I see people in suits around this town, I now have the realization that they could be my kids - and that scares the be-jeebus out of me. Especially as some of these kids are the ones helping craft laws and policy!


: ya (none / 0) (#17)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 11:56:23 AM EST

wait until they could be your grandchildren

however (none / 0) (#16)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 11:55:39 AM EST

I doubt that argument is going to be very persuasive to many people my age. we having fought off younger cheaper replacements for us for years we are not terribly sympathetic to the fact that someone wants our job.
I have worked my a$$ off to be where I am. I love my job and honestly cant imagine retiring. where I would probably sit on the sofa and stay baked all day. afaic they can find another job or wait until I die.


I understand (none / 0) (#18)
by jbindc on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 12:19:43 PM EST

I don't think people should be pushed out because they reach a certain age.

But it IS a problem that creates a huge bottleneck and has long term consequences. Younger people can't get jobs because the oldest haven't left the workforce and everyone in between hasn't moved up the chain. Younger people lose skills by taking menial jobs (if they can find them) or decide to go back to school for an advanced degree, thereby dramatically increasing their student loan debt. When they come out, they may get a job finally, but now under crippling debt,the entry level salary won't cover that, and will hamper their ability to buy large consumer goods (like a car) and/or maybe a house.

You see where I'm going with this.

The only answer is to create more jobs so they aren't a scarce resource.

I wish I (or someone) had an answer so we could do that.


: sure (none / 0) (#21)
by Capt Howdy on Thu Jan 27, 2011 at 12:41:40 PM EST

no easy answers