Retirement Blog

Finance Blogs » Retirement Blog » More on no Social Security at 62

More on no Social Security at 62

By Jennie L. Phipps ·
Monday, December 27, 2010
Posted: 4 pm ET

Three months ago, I blogged about a proposal from the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, to get rid of the option to take Social Security at age 62. Holy cow, the people who thought this was a lousy retirement planning proposal have continued to fill my e-mail inbox with their thoughts.

This note, from a woman who begged to be anonymous, seems to reflect the majority opinion about retirement timing most eloquently:

"I totally disagree with your premise to raise the age of full retirement benefits. I am currently 60 years old. I do not have a retirement account and have a meager pension to collect when I retire. I cannot wait to retire! I am tired, sick and need to step away from the enormous stress of my job. I cannot accomplish this until I am 63 and am terrified that reckless ideas as yours will be enacted.

I cannot work until 66. That is not an option, but I am not sick enough to qualify for disability. I have worked full time -- two and three jobs at a time -- since I was 15 years old. They have collected Social Security from every one of those paychecks, an amount I doubt I will ever fully collect.

You might wonder why I am not better prepared for my retirement. I was a single mother, I raised a wonderful son, kept a roof over our heads and never, ever relied on public assistance. There were too many weeks we had to decide if we would buy groceries or pay bills. (I am sure you have no concept of this lifestyle). I don't regret those years, just wish there had been other options.

Bottom line -- leave Social Security alone. I earned it. I need it."
Does anyone see this issue differently?

Bankrate wants to hear from you and encourages comments. We ask that you stay on topic, respect other people's opinions, and avoid profanity, offensive statements, and illegal content. Please keep in mind that we reserve the right to (but are not obligated to) edit or delete your comments. Please avoid posting private or confidential information, and also keep in mind that anything you post may be disclosed, published, transmitted or reused.

By submitting a post, you agree to be bound by Bankrate's terms of use. Please refer to Bankrate's privacy policy for more information regarding Bankrate's privacy practices.
February 25, 2011 at 3:58 pm

I feel that our citizens should have that safety net to take
advantage of since it is their money and as well as the money from there employers paid into the SS system. I would say it is time
that European and Asia Theater pay for there own "Defense" and as
well as the "Global-Handouts" to different country's come to a
complete stop! It is not selfish or wrong to take care of your own people first and extend charity to others later.Hello,Hello,
nobody is home to listen to the American people.
? Maybe some of the "Billions of Dollars" to those programs could be filter into Social Security & Medicare

February 25, 2011 at 3:53 pm

Retirement age must be increased, but it must also be done slowly enough that those who are preparing to retire can still do so.
over 60 - no changes
over 55 - retire at 67
over 50 - retire at 68
over 40 - retire at 70
all others - retire at 72
also anyone may opt to have 50% of their SS contribution go into a mutual fund which will be theirs at age 65 if they wish to retire early.

Thanks for listening - start the food fight now.

February 25, 2011 at 3:53 pm

Not too bright there, friend. It was a Democratic president, FDR, who enacted Social Security and he was as liberal as they come. Actually it is the Republicans who want to end or limit Social Security. That stupidity started with Reagan and continues with the GOP today. It is only the fear of a backlash by older voters that keeps Social Security safe from the GOP.