Retirement Blog

Finance Blogs » Retirement » No Social Security until age 65?

No Social Security until age 65?

By Jennie L. Phipps · Bankrate.com
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Posted: 10 am ET

I've already made up my mind that part of my retirement planning is to continue typing on this keyboard until my fingers don't work anymore. So I'm inclined to believe that a proposal from the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, to get rid of the option to take Social Security at age 62 is a good idea. The report advocates raising the first opportunity to claim benefits to full retirement age -- 66, rising to 67 in about 2020.

The author of the recently released report, Andrew Biggs, a scholar in residence at the institute, outlines these advantages:

  • Prolong the life of the Social Security trust fund by five years, a modest but significant increase.
  • Raise median income of older Americans by $7,500 a year, including both increased Social Security benefits and savings and other pension income.
  • Boost gross domestic product by about 5 percent through increased productivity, adding billions to the economy and tax revenues.

Biggs says keeping people working until 66 or 67 isn't a physical problem for most these days. He points to another study by David Cutler, a Harvard researcher, conducted for the Retirement Research Center in Boston, that concluded that 65-year-old men have the capacity to work 90 percent as hard as men in their late 50s, and work capacity only declines to 70 percent at age 75.

So Biggs says to keep most people who were born in 1952 and later on the job for another four or five years, while continuing to make Social Security disability available to those who are physically or mentally unable to work that long.

Biggs would offer one big concession. He suggests reducing significantly or eliminating Social Security payroll taxes for people who work and contribute to Social Security longer than 35 years, because the formula for calculating Social Security doesn't reward longer service. "The median individual receives only around 2.5 cents of additional benefits in exchange for $1 of additional taxes at the end of his work life," he writes.

Eliminating payroll taxes would "sweeten the pot" for those asked to work longer, he says.

That would make me lots happier. How do you feel about it?

«
»
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.
214 Comments
dan
December 24, 2010 at 10:55 am

make everyone pay ssi,keep the feds from taking the interest from the fund each year.keep 65 when you can get it at all.......

Barbara
December 24, 2010 at 10:47 am

No. Just no. After working 22 years in my current field, I have earned the right to choose when to quit, and receiving benefits at age 62 is a very significant factor in that decision. The problems with SS stem largely from mismanagement in years past by those in power who do not and will not have to rely on it in their golden years. I know this is simplistic, but those whose decisions have resulted in the problems should bear the brunt of the shortage. Raise taxes for the wealthy and the very wealthy. From my humble vantage point it seems that much of the wealth in this country is now benefitting foreign concerns; it can no longer be argued that the very wealthy "create jobs." For example, too many are bolstering energy expense that could have already been greatly decreased for the middle classes by investing in alternatives, like solar energy, cold fusion, and the like.
Just no.

anne
December 24, 2010 at 8:31 am

My Mom Is set too retire in june of 2011.
She is not able health wise to work longer.
If they raise the age higher,I really don't know what she would do.I am looking for a job myself and cannot help her.
I am worried for her.I am worried for all the older folks.
Not everyone has a desk job.
The Goverment needs to start taking care of Americans first.
Help other countrys when you are able.
Right now America needs to focus on America.
GOD bless us all.We are going to need it.

kent
December 23, 2010 at 9:45 pm

I think the Govt. should quit dipping in to the Social Security till. This way there would be enough money to take care of retirees at 62. I also feel that we should get America back to work so we will be receiving money back into SS. Let's face it, if no-one is working, no-one is paying in. Bring our jobs back to American soil instead of sending them overseas, to Canada and Mexico. Greed of Big business and politicians have put us in this mess, not the hard working folks who have worked to retire at 62 or 65.

Michael 009
December 22, 2010 at 9:30 pm

Far better to raise the rate a little, I understand that an increase of 1% would solve all problems of the SS solvency. Some people have worked very hard including physical labor for 45 years by age 62, and really need the rest. Unlike desk jockeys whose only "work" is typing or pushing a pencil, and creating endless BS.

John Foster
December 22, 2010 at 12:49 pm

"the PRIVATELY OWNED FEDERAL RESERVE (that's right it ain't government owned)" is correct. It is a banking cartel. Not unlike OPEC or others.

bbob
December 21, 2010 at 3:36 pm

Kim rails "there are ZERO freedoms in this country "

This is right after he rails about people having the right to invest their 401k as they see fit. Noone stopped those people who were blindly investing from picking up a book or the wall street journal and actually learning about investments. Noone stopped them from going to finance classes. Noone stopped them from seeking advice from people who konw about financial matters. Noone stopped them from reading the fine print on their 401k investments. Noone stopped these folks from investing in the bank account which Kim suggests doing instead of investing in 401Ks

Yet we are told by Kim that there are zero freedoms in this country.

Sounds like what Kim wants is not freedom but someone to baby sit him and tell him what to do and how to do it and to kiss his boo boo if something goes wrong.

Grow up.

larry
December 21, 2010 at 8:21 am

It is very easy for people who sit in an office to say raising the age limit is no big deal. What about the ones who have to work with their minds and their bodies? I have installed carpeting for 32 years and at age 56 my body is wearing out. I just hope I can make it to age 62 with my body letting me enjoy my retirement.

Kim
December 18, 2010 at 12:25 pm

60 Minutes TV program showed the average American the 401K SCAM and how it has scammed many millions of people of their retirement dreams. The 401K should have been a vehicle to safely keep money (tax free earning interest) to be used during the so-called "golden years" YET it was designed as a mini-stock/money management scheme with hefty HIDDEN FEE's having people with very little or ZERO knowledge of investment strategies "investing" into the rackets to make more money from their 401K savings vehicle - INSTEAD many near-retirement people have far LESS in their 401K today then if they had just added all of that money to a pathetic bank savings account and watched it grow at aprox 1% interest.

NOW the PRIVATELY OWNED FEDERAL RESERVE (that's right it ain't government owned) who is making money on mortgages AND foreclosures and making money on the invisible money yet to be created AND the supposed money set aside for Social Security wants to make Americans work longer to earn back their wages they put into a system that the Federal Reserve is making money off of so ESSENTIALLY the Federal Reserve can make MORE money on interest for the additional years one must work.

ARE YOU KIDDING?

there are ZERO freedoms in this country - watch what happens in the next few years when more Americans wake up and realize the government is NOT "for the people" and there are no more bailout packages for the porn industry and bankers oil companies and insurance companies

700 BILLION bailout and STILL the Corporate workhorse laid of millions of Americans

It is sickening what the government is doing to the people of this once great nation - no longer a super-power America will meet the same destruction Rome did unless things change - cannot change when the policy makers do as they please and ignore the people they serve and the Americans who are nearing retirement that made many slave labor corporate giants millions of dollars will be left with nothing.

Olivia
December 18, 2010 at 10:05 am

What I want to know is, why ss? We have welfare, so why ssi to? If u don't work and have no income then u should b eligible for public aide. There is no need for the ssi program. This program is helping social security go broke. If u didn't earn enough to recieve social security then get on welfare it will save a lot of money.