social security age

[bradepb]

So I was wondering why SS considers for me 66.5 years to be full retirement age.
Why even put a number on it when you can retire as early as 62 with reduced benefits. It is not as though when I turn 66.5 it is my maximum amount I can collect since the amount increases about 8% for every year you delay until I think age 70.
I guess I am just wondering why they put a certain age on it when really its from 62 all the way to 70. It is not for Medicare as I am eligible at 65.

 

[Mr Nice]

They want you to work longer (pay more $$$ into SS) with the carrot (bigger SS check). The older you get the less years of life you have.

 

[bradepb]

I understand that.
My question is why is there a certain number considered to be "full" retirement age? When you can retire at any age from 62-70 with adjusted benefits.
Why would 70 not be "full" age since that is when you get the biggest benefit?

 

[bradepb]

I think maybe it is just to make there projections work. It used to be everyone was full retirement age at 65 because that was when you got Medicare. They keep raising this imaginary Full Retirement age so they won't run out of money on paper.when they raise the number it makes the projections for the future solvent.

I bet also if I could go back in time with the same income and retire at the old "full age" of 65 I would receive slightly higher benefits than my new "full" age of 66.5.

 

[Eddie]

It allows one to go to the SS site and see their projected SS amount.

 

[eljefino]

If you feel like you're going to drop dead, retire at 62 so you at least get something. If you think you'll make 90 and love work, keep at it. There may be tax benefits to not draw SS if you're still working that late.

 

[edwardh1]

"full retirement age" read the definition and "rules" once you reach that age u can work without a $ penalty on your income

 

[edwardh1]

"full retirement age" read the definition and "rules" once you reach that age and get on social security u can work without a $ penalty on your social security income

 

[widman]

Don't forget that if you have other income, it will seriously reduce that payment at 62, and will still have affects at 66.5.

 

[bradepb]

OK I will try to rephrase my question somehow.
Why is there such a thing that is called "full retirement age" by the SS administration? Why do they say my full retirement age is 66.5 when that is not when you would recieve your "full" amount. It is more or less in the middle.

What reason is there to pick any certain age and call it "full retirement age". If you collect earlier you get less if later you get more , I understand that, but why do they pick that specific number to call "full retirement age"

 

[pcoxe]

I retired at 62. Even with reduced SS and a reduced pension, I'm making nearly the same as working, and still have a 401-K to draw from to compensate for inflation over time. Working longer certainly gives you a larger benefit, but you can't buy back any years of life with it.

 

[bradepb]

Originally Posted By: edwardh1
"full retirement age" read the definition and "rules" once you reach that age and get on social security u can work without a $ penalty on your social security income

Thank you, I think you are probably right.It must have to do with how much you can make after starting to collect. There are limits until you get to that age although they look to be pretty generous really.

 

[Burt]

Originally Posted By: bradepb
Originally Posted By: edwardh1
"full retirement age" read the definition and "rules" once you reach that age and get on social security u can work without a $ penalty on your social security income

Thank you, I think you are probably right.It must have to do with how much you can make after starting to collect. There are limits until you get to that age although they look to be pretty generous really.


"full retirement age" is a bit of a misnomer. The other thing it is saying is you will get the same benefits at 66.5 years that someone borne earlier would have gotten at 65. So it you take SS at 62, you'll get a 12% greater discount than under the old rules.

 

[bradepb]

Originally Posted By: Burt
Originally Posted By: bradepb
Originally Posted By: edwardh1
"full retirement age" read the definition and "rules" once you reach that age and get on social security u can work without a $ penalty on your social security income

Thank you, I think you are probably right.It must have to do with how much you can make after starting to collect. There are limits until you get to that age although they look to be pretty generous really.


"full retirement age" is a bit of a misnomer. The other thing it is saying is you will get the same benefits at 66.5 years that someone borne earlier would have gotten at 65. So it you take SS at 62, you'll get a 12% greater discount than under the old rules.


Ok, It kind of makes sense now. You guys explain it pretty well. Pretty much the older they make this number, It affects the whole scale of benefits. That is why younger people are looking at even older "full retirement age"

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: bradepb
Ok, It kind of makes sense now. You guys explain it pretty well. Pretty much the older they make this number, It affects the whole scale of benefits. That is why younger people are looking at even older "full retirement age"


And the baby boomers, who are in charge of the system will get "their" money NOW, while pushing everyone else's date further and further out, and changing the rule for the next gen's retirement plans and taxation.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: bradepb
Ok, It kind of makes sense now. You guys explain it pretty well. Pretty much the older they make this number, It affects the whole scale of benefits. That is why younger people are looking at even older "full retirement age"


And the baby boomers, who are in charge of the system will get "their" money NOW, while pushing everyone else's date further and further out, and changing the rule for the next gen's retirement plans and taxation.
Even suggesting changes in SS, such as a "means test" for higher income folks is the kiss of electoral death here. One party in particular makes it a staged part of the last weeks of their "campaigns" to accuse the other party of wanting to "take away Social Security".

 

[Mr Nice]

Basically fund your own retirement and retire at 60, let SS kick in at 62.
I've got 2 pensions, IRA and 401K that will easily suffice to even think about collecting SS.

Zero need to wait till 65-70 to collect SS, enjoy retirement while you are still 'young'.

 

[PR1955]

Mr. Nice- First of all I want to thank you for your service. Now, to respond to your post. You have obviously been successful, worked diligently, and made smart choices. I have read a few of your posts, and you have mentioned several times your 2 pensions, IRA, and 401K. Congratulations, you will be able to live comfortably in retirement, and yes, it is the result of good planning. Many of us are not in the same situation, be it through poor planning, bad circumstances, or poor choices. For those of us in our 50's and 60's who failed (for whatever reason) to invest or save enough, we DO need to consider the income we will get from SS as necessary, not to live on solely, but as a part of our retirement income. Pensions are largely a thing of the past, some of us struggle for years to make ends meet and have had little opportunity to invest enough to build a substantial nest egg. Your advice is great for people with benefits such as yours, but not so helpful to the majority.

 

[MikeHigg]

For me, start SS when it covers your needs.

 

[Doog]

I am waiting until 70 since I have my own business and can keep working as long as I wish. I'll hold out for the higher payout amount when I finally decide to live on a fixed income. If they raise it again I'll continue to wait to get the highest payment. My FIL took it at 62 and he is real sorry now at age 80 because he is cashed starved all the time.