She’s 68 years old, meaning born in 1956. For someone born that year the earliest they can take Social Security is age 62. source
“I always wanted to earn my own money,” Echols said. “I always wanted to work, and at the age of 14, someone started my Social Security records for me. I waited 45 years to get that paycheck.”
From her quote it sounds like that’s what she did. However starting to take social security that early also means you get a reduced benefit. Assuming she started it the day she turned 62 she only gets 73.3% of her full possible benefit. If she had waited until age 66 she would have gotten her full benefit of $1446/month instead of the $1056/month she’s getting now. However, I completely understand that she may have had to start taking it early for personal economic reasons to survive. This is one of the reasons retirement savings outside of social security is so important. If she would have had enough to supplement and delay social security until 66, she would have had the full amount and still retire at 62.
Retirement age is whatever age you can afford it. The Social Security age only continues to rise because the point of Social Security isn’t to grant a time after working age for leisure. A big chunk of those that pay into Social Security are supposed to die before taking benefits. The Social Security payments are there so that those that survive that long aren’t living it abject poverty. Thats it. That’s all Social Security (for retirement) is.
If I’m understanding you right, part of what you’re referring to is “means testing”. Means testing is usually defined as : “if a person has a way to obtain income outside of Social Security, they should have their Social Security benefits reduced”.
This is a hypercharged political issue. Even the wealthy pay into Social Security to receive the same level of benefit as everyone else. The suggestion of means testing is, if someone can afford to live without Social Security, should they get it at all? This raises lots of problematic questions. A few I can think of is:
who decided what income equals “affordable” in my example above?
is SS benefit reduced by just rental income, or do you go after people with pensions and 401k income?
is it fair to be forced to pay into a system for your entire working career and not get any benefit out of it at the individual level?
does means testing reduce the incentive to save for retirement? As in, why save extra if your SS benefits will be reduced to equal what you saved on the side?
So far there’s no legislation that supports means testing for Social Security benefits that have passed that I’m aware of, but I don’t claim to be any kind of expert.
It’s based on the poverty level income and inflation which is also measured/decided by government.
Social Security should be reduced by any income above that poverty level not just working income as it is now. That is the unfair part to me. If you actually work your benefit is reduced, if you just rent out some homes it isnt. Social Security isn’t supposed to be a bonus to retirement. It was literally meant to keep old people off the streets and if you didn’t/couldn’t save up more than that I’m not inclined to do more than that. Essentially old people UBI, keep them off the streets but not a replacement for actual work/savings.
The government uses my taxes to spends billions on things that don’t benefit me directly. I’m a lot more ok with welfare programs(and their massive societal benefits) than bombing Palestinian children. Call it a separate tax all you want it comes out of my paycheck and goes to the government all the same. Fairness or equality of paying in get pay out is not the same as equity or justice of those who have less getting helped more. Those with more having their money go to those with less is exactly how a good society works and is what I hear a lot of the boomers grew up with before pulling up the ladder for everyone younger.
As it is now it is not a 1:1 reduction, it is tiered, I’d still keep that part of it. So if you have more you still have more not equal. It is human to want more than just subsistence living so I don’t see this being an issue. If not, so what? they still paid into it.
Essentially there already is means testing and the way it is done right now favors the haves, when it should favor the havenots.
Social Security should be reduced by any income above that poverty level not just working income as it is now. That is the unfair part to me.
And here’s exactly one of the problems I listed above. You’re asking that any separate retirement savings or income equaling or greater that about $15k/year should negate a person receiving SS retirement benefits. This would be subtracted by income from pensions, annuities, investment income, interest, veterans benefits, or other government or military retirement benefits.
Essentially old people UBI, keep them off the streets but not a replacement for actual work/savings.
You want that program, I certainly wouldn’t oppose it, but that’s not what Social Security retirement benefits are today.
If you actually work your benefit is reduced, if you just rent out some homes it isnt.
Keep in mind, the reduction you’re talking about for a fully retired person (65 or 67 depending on when they were born) would be earning above $59,520/year or more from their work in retirement. And again, if the fully retired person is getting $59,520/year income from pensions, annuities, investment income, interest, veterans benefits, or other government or military retirement benefits, you’d have them get zero SS retirement benefits.
Fairness or equality of paying in get pay out is not the same as equity or justice of those who have less getting helped more.
You’re changing the terms of the deal that everyone that has paid in agreed to. You can want it to be different, but make no mistake you’re suggesting a “bait and switch” to hundreds of millions of Americans that have planned on having SS retirement benefits granted to them as part of their retirement planning.
You can want SS retirement benefits to be something else, but your desired changes are exactly why its a non-started that isn’t even considered.
It’s not a negation when there is a standard of 28k before any deduction and the ratio of deduction is 2:1 or even 3:1 after that. I’m not proposing a drastic difference, the current system just with more income considered. If you have greater income you still have greater income. Maybe you lose out on a couple k from ssi but you make enough to live better than someone with only ssi.
I’m talking what could be or imo should be. You keep talking what is. I never said anything about the practicality of this getting through congress anytime soon. That’d require a greater cultural shift than I foresee happening anytime soon.
Reality is that under the current system ssi already isn’t going to work past 2035 if things remain as they are. Anyone in retirement after that shouldn’t be including ssi in their retirement plans right now because it very well may not exist.
Your argument is the same as property taxes for schools being so unequally distributed. Don’t want to pay for other kids just your own. As we’ve seem from the past however many decades or centuries this “separate but equal” doesn’t work out long-term we need “united and equitable”. I don’t know when or if these changes will occur, but I know they won’t without being talked about.
I’m by no means an economist, lawyer, or politician and I doubt you are either, chillax on the seriousness and trying to find flaws in what is a random internet musing and certainly not a legal bill or treatise on the subject.
Thank you for confirming nearly every single one of the issues I cited. For a reminder, here’s the quick list I came up with, and your answers afterward:
who decided what income equals “affordable” in my example above?
I’m talking what could be or imo should be.
So you’ve decided the best person to decide is you.
is SS benefit reduced by just rental income, or do you go after people with pensions and 401k income?
If you have greater income you still have greater income. Maybe you lose out on a couple k from ssi but you make enough to live better than someone with only ssi.
So you’re confirming you’re looking to remove SS benefits and punish those that did save or have income in any capacity.
is it fair to be forced to pay into a system for your entire working career and not get any benefit out of it at the individual level?
Fairness or equality of paying in get pay out is not the same as equity or justice of those who have less getting helped more.
And you’re okay with changing the terms of the deal of SS benefits after decades of people relying on it as a part of their retirement.
Your argument is the same as property taxes for schools being so unequally distributed.
Nice strawman. I’m not taking the bait on that.
chillax on the seriousness and trying to find flaws in what is a random internet musing and certainly not a legal bill or treatise on the subject.
Okay so you’re just looking to talk at your audience without any response? Whats the point of coming up with a plan if you’re not willing to subject it to scrutiny or deal with its flaws? If that’s all you want, then you don’t need me or anyone to read or respond to your ideas. Its not what you’re looking for.
Carry on and talking into the void then. I’m out. Have a nice day.
Bringing retirement age down really isn’t feasible when people live longer and longer. It’d likely be better to find a middle-ground, where folks can slowly reduce the hours they work as they age until retiring completely.
For me (mid-40s) from a quick glance at the SSA site, I surprisingly wouldn’t take a hit if I started at 62. That assuming it’s a) there and b) not privately invested in some shitshow tying it up, etc., of course.
Tentatively, given there’s no difference between 62 and 68 for me, and I’m not exactly in idea health already, the real motivation for me to work past 62 is the health insurance.
I have no illusion that the ACA or the Marketplace will exist in its current form nearly two decades from now; and Medicare seems to have a hard cut at 65 rather than the age range one could claim SS at.
That three years between 62 and 65, without Medicare, the Marketplace, or employer paid insurance, would be a far larger risk than I’m willing to take, barring a full and complete disability.
She’s 68 years old, meaning born in 1956. For someone born that year the earliest they can take Social Security is age 62. source
From her quote it sounds like that’s what she did. However starting to take social security that early also means you get a reduced benefit. Assuming she started it the day she turned 62 she only gets 73.3% of her full possible benefit. If she had waited until age 66 she would have gotten her full benefit of $1446/month instead of the $1056/month she’s getting now. However, I completely understand that she may have had to start taking it early for personal economic reasons to survive. This is one of the reasons retirement savings outside of social security is so important. If she would have had enough to supplement and delay social security until 66, she would have had the full amount and still retire at 62.
I find it appalling that as productivity has increased we haven’t focused on bringing the retirement age down.
Retirement age is whatever age you can afford it. The Social Security age only continues to rise because the point of Social Security isn’t to grant a time after working age for leisure. A big chunk of those that pay into Social Security are supposed to die before taking benefits. The Social Security payments are there so that those that survive that long aren’t living it abject poverty. Thats it. That’s all Social Security (for retirement) is.
The giant loophole is that social security is specifically not reduced for the ways the wealthy make money such as rental income and investments.
If I’m understanding you right, part of what you’re referring to is “means testing”. Means testing is usually defined as : “if a person has a way to obtain income outside of Social Security, they should have their Social Security benefits reduced”.
This is a hypercharged political issue. Even the wealthy pay into Social Security to receive the same level of benefit as everyone else. The suggestion of means testing is, if someone can afford to live without Social Security, should they get it at all? This raises lots of problematic questions. A few I can think of is:
So far there’s no legislation that supports means testing for Social Security benefits that have passed that I’m aware of, but I don’t claim to be any kind of expert.
It’s based on the poverty level income and inflation which is also measured/decided by government.
Social Security should be reduced by any income above that poverty level not just working income as it is now. That is the unfair part to me. If you actually work your benefit is reduced, if you just rent out some homes it isnt. Social Security isn’t supposed to be a bonus to retirement. It was literally meant to keep old people off the streets and if you didn’t/couldn’t save up more than that I’m not inclined to do more than that. Essentially old people UBI, keep them off the streets but not a replacement for actual work/savings.
The government uses my taxes to spends billions on things that don’t benefit me directly. I’m a lot more ok with welfare programs(and their massive societal benefits) than bombing Palestinian children. Call it a separate tax all you want it comes out of my paycheck and goes to the government all the same. Fairness or equality of paying in get pay out is not the same as equity or justice of those who have less getting helped more. Those with more having their money go to those with less is exactly how a good society works and is what I hear a lot of the boomers grew up with before pulling up the ladder for everyone younger.
As it is now it is not a 1:1 reduction, it is tiered, I’d still keep that part of it. So if you have more you still have more not equal. It is human to want more than just subsistence living so I don’t see this being an issue. If not, so what? they still paid into it.
Essentially there already is means testing and the way it is done right now favors the haves, when it should favor the havenots.
And here’s exactly one of the problems I listed above. You’re asking that any separate retirement savings or income equaling or greater that about $15k/year should negate a person receiving SS retirement benefits. This would be subtracted by income from pensions, annuities, investment income, interest, veterans benefits, or other government or military retirement benefits.
You want that program, I certainly wouldn’t oppose it, but that’s not what Social Security retirement benefits are today.
Keep in mind, the reduction you’re talking about for a fully retired person (65 or 67 depending on when they were born) would be earning above $59,520/year or more from their work in retirement. And again, if the fully retired person is getting $59,520/year income from pensions, annuities, investment income, interest, veterans benefits, or other government or military retirement benefits, you’d have them get zero SS retirement benefits.
You’re changing the terms of the deal that everyone that has paid in agreed to. You can want it to be different, but make no mistake you’re suggesting a “bait and switch” to hundreds of millions of Americans that have planned on having SS retirement benefits granted to them as part of their retirement planning.
You can want SS retirement benefits to be something else, but your desired changes are exactly why its a non-started that isn’t even considered.
It’s not a negation when there is a standard of 28k before any deduction and the ratio of deduction is 2:1 or even 3:1 after that. I’m not proposing a drastic difference, the current system just with more income considered. If you have greater income you still have greater income. Maybe you lose out on a couple k from ssi but you make enough to live better than someone with only ssi.
I’m talking what could be or imo should be. You keep talking what is. I never said anything about the practicality of this getting through congress anytime soon. That’d require a greater cultural shift than I foresee happening anytime soon.
Reality is that under the current system ssi already isn’t going to work past 2035 if things remain as they are. Anyone in retirement after that shouldn’t be including ssi in their retirement plans right now because it very well may not exist.
Your argument is the same as property taxes for schools being so unequally distributed. Don’t want to pay for other kids just your own. As we’ve seem from the past however many decades or centuries this “separate but equal” doesn’t work out long-term we need “united and equitable”. I don’t know when or if these changes will occur, but I know they won’t without being talked about.
I’m by no means an economist, lawyer, or politician and I doubt you are either, chillax on the seriousness and trying to find flaws in what is a random internet musing and certainly not a legal bill or treatise on the subject.
Thank you for confirming nearly every single one of the issues I cited. For a reminder, here’s the quick list I came up with, and your answers afterward:
So you’ve decided the best person to decide is you.
So you’re confirming you’re looking to remove SS benefits and punish those that did save or have income in any capacity.
And you’re okay with changing the terms of the deal of SS benefits after decades of people relying on it as a part of their retirement.
Nice strawman. I’m not taking the bait on that.
Okay so you’re just looking to talk at your audience without any response? Whats the point of coming up with a plan if you’re not willing to subject it to scrutiny or deal with its flaws? If that’s all you want, then you don’t need me or anyone to read or respond to your ideas. Its not what you’re looking for.
Carry on and talking into the void then. I’m out. Have a nice day.
Bringing retirement age down really isn’t feasible when people live longer and longer. It’d likely be better to find a middle-ground, where folks can slowly reduce the hours they work as they age until retiring completely.
This is Bs. America is rich as fuck
Also Americans are living shorter and shorter due to our healthcare system and (shocker!) wage inequality and all the problems that brings.
For me (mid-40s) from a quick glance at the SSA site, I surprisingly wouldn’t take a hit if I started at 62. That assuming it’s a) there and b) not privately invested in some shitshow tying it up, etc., of course.
Tentatively, given there’s no difference between 62 and 68 for me, and I’m not exactly in idea health already, the real motivation for me to work past 62 is the health insurance.
I have no illusion that the ACA or the Marketplace will exist in its current form nearly two decades from now; and Medicare seems to have a hard cut at 65 rather than the age range one could claim SS at.
That three years between 62 and 65, without Medicare, the Marketplace, or employer paid insurance, would be a far larger risk than I’m willing to take, barring a full and complete disability.
deleted by creator